Taxpayers face heavy losses on auto bailout

RockX

Banned
WASHINGTON (AP) — Taxpayers face losses on a significant portion of the $81 billion in government aid provided to the auto industry, an oversight panel said in a report to be released Wednesday.

The Congressional Oversight Panel did not provide an estimate of the projected loss in its latest monthly report on the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. But it said most of the $23 billion initially provided to General Motors . and Chrysler late last year is unlikely to be repaid.


"I think they drove a very hard bargain," said Elizabeth Warren, the panel's chairwoman and a law professor at Harvard University, referring to the Obama administration's Treasury Department. "But it may not be enough."

The prospect of recovering the government's assistance to GM and Chrysler is heavily dependent on shares of the two companies rising to unprecedented levels, the report said. The government owns 10% of Chrysler and 61% of GM. The two companies are currently private but are expected to issue stock, in GM's case by next year.

The shares "will have to appreciate sharply" for taxpayers to get their money back, the report said.

For example, GM's market value would have to reach $67.6 billion, the report said, a "highly optimistic" estimate and more than the $57.2 billion GM was worth at the height of its share value in April 2008. And in the case of Chrysler, about $5.4 billion of the $14.3 billion provided to the company is "highly unlikely" to ever be repaid, the panel said.

Treasury Department officials have acknowledged that most of the $23 billion provided by the Bush administration is likely to be lost. But Meg Reilly, a department spokeswoman, said there is a "reasonably high probability of the return of most or all of the government funding" that was provided to assist GM and Chrysler with their restructurings.

Administration officials have previously said they want to maximize taxpayers' return on the investment but want to dispose of the government's ownership interests as soon as practicable.

"We are not trying to be Warren Buffett here. We are not trying to squeeze every last dollar out," Steve Rattner, who led the administration's auto task force, said before his departure in July. "We do want to do well for the taxpayers but the most important thing is to get the government out of the car business."

Greg Martin, a spokesman for the new GM, said the company is "confident that we will repay our nation's support because we are a company with less debt, a stronger balance sheet, a winning product portfolio and the right size to match today's market realities."

The Congressional Oversight Panel was created as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. It is designed to provide an additional layer of oversight, beyond the Special Inspector General for the TARP and regular audits by the Government Accountability Office.

The panel's report recommends that the Treasury Department consider placing its auto company holdings into an independent trust, to avoid any "conflicts of interest."

The report also recommends the department perform a legal analysis of its decision to provide TARP funds to GM and Chrysler, their financing arms and many auto parts suppliers. Some critics say the law creating TARP didn't allow for such funding.

The panel's members include Rep. Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican, who dissented from the report. Hensarling said the auto companies should never have received funding and criticized the government for picking "winners and losers."

Other agencies have also projected large losses on the loans and investments provided to the industry. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in June that taxpayers would lose about $40 billion of the first $55 billion in aid.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-09-09-auto-bailout_N.htm


Notice how they are trying to spin it that the money we won't get back is the money that Bush approved, not the money that Obama approved. Dream on if you think either sum will be repaid.
 
WASHINGTON (AP) — Taxpayers face losses on a significant portion of the $81 billion in government aid provided to the auto industry, an oversight panel said in a report to be released Wednesday.

The Congressional Oversight Panel did not provide an estimate of the projected loss in its latest monthly report on the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. But it said most of the $23 billion initially provided to General Motors . and Chrysler late last year is unlikely to be repaid.


"I think they drove a very hard bargain," said Elizabeth Warren, the panel's chairwoman and a law professor at Harvard University, referring to the Obama administration's Treasury Department. "But it may not be enough."

The prospect of recovering the government's assistance to GM and Chrysler is heavily dependent on shares of the two companies rising to unprecedented levels, the report said. The government owns 10% of Chrysler and 61% of GM. The two companies are currently private but are expected to issue stock, in GM's case by next year.

The shares "will have to appreciate sharply" for taxpayers to get their money back, the report said.

For example, GM's market value would have to reach $67.6 billion, the report said, a "highly optimistic" estimate and more than the $57.2 billion GM was worth at the height of its share value in April 2008. And in the case of Chrysler, about $5.4 billion of the $14.3 billion provided to the company is "highly unlikely" to ever be repaid, the panel said.

Treasury Department officials have acknowledged that most of the $23 billion provided by the Bush administration is likely to be lost. But Meg Reilly, a department spokeswoman, said there is a "reasonably high probability of the return of most or all of the government funding" that was provided to assist GM and Chrysler with their restructurings.

Administration officials have previously said they want to maximize taxpayers' return on the investment but want to dispose of the government's ownership interests as soon as practicable.

"We are not trying to be Warren Buffett here. We are not trying to squeeze every last dollar out," Steve Rattner, who led the administration's auto task force, said before his departure in July. "We do want to do well for the taxpayers but the most important thing is to get the government out of the car business."

Greg Martin, a spokesman for the new GM, said the company is "confident that we will repay our nation's support because we are a company with less debt, a stronger balance sheet, a winning product portfolio and the right size to match today's market realities."

The Congressional Oversight Panel was created as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. It is designed to provide an additional layer of oversight, beyond the Special Inspector General for the TARP and regular audits by the Government Accountability Office.

The panel's report recommends that the Treasury Department consider placing its auto company holdings into an independent trust, to avoid any "conflicts of interest."

The report also recommends the department perform a legal analysis of its decision to provide TARP funds to GM and Chrysler, their financing arms and many auto parts suppliers. Some critics say the law creating TARP didn't allow for such funding.

The panel's members include Rep. Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican, who dissented from the report. Hensarling said the auto companies should never have received funding and criticized the government for picking "winners and losers."

Other agencies have also projected large losses on the loans and investments provided to the industry. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in June that taxpayers would lose about $40 billion of the first $55 billion in aid.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-09-09-auto-bailout_N.htm


Notice how they are trying to spin it that the money we won't get back is the money that Bush approved, not the money that Obama approved. Dream on if you think either sum will be repaid.

SIGH!! I thought it was a bad idea in the first place:(
 
did you think that a car salesman was going to pay you back or cut you a deal? has anyone even hung out with one? Of course a banker will usually pay you back.
 
Yo man, how much taxpayer money did you and your hero Bush cause us to lose in Iraq?

one of these days it's probably going to shock the shit out of you when you realize that the dems and the repubs are just two sides of the same coin and they both have fucked us out of those billions. will you still be pointing fingers at Bush after that?
 
one of these days it's probably going to shock the shit out of you when you realize that the dems and the repubs are just two sides of the same coin and they both have fucked us out of those billions. will you still be pointing fingers at Bush after that?
He was President for the last eight years.
 
$23 bill is peanuts compared to how much the economy would have lost if GM had gone under; absolutely peanuts.

I have noticed that there are many who have a difficult time making the connection between GM's failure and their own life. You'll just have to trust me: you're wrong if you think it wouldn't have mattered to you.
 
Notice how they are trying to spin it that the money we won't get back is the money that Bush approved, not the money that Obama approved. Dream on if you think either sum will be repaid.

Hmm Yep some spin.

By DAVID E. SANGER, DAVID M. HERSZENHORN and BILL VLASIC
Published: December 19, 2008

WASHINGTON — The emergency bailout of General Motors and Chrysler announced by President Bush on Friday gives the companies a few months to get their businesses in order, but hands off to President-elect Barack Obama the difficult political task of ruling on their future.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20auto.html?_r=1
 
$23 bill is peanuts compared to how much the economy would have lost if GM had gone under; absolutely peanuts.
the 'economy' wouldn't have lost shit. GM and its shareholders would have lost and tough shit for them. There are other companies to fill the gap and would have sobered up the other shareholders of other companies to hold their employees accountable. As it stands now, the american people are out 23 billion dollars. That is not peanuts.

I have noticed that there are many who have a difficult time making the connection between GM's failure and their own life. You'll just have to trust me: you're wrong if you think it wouldn't have mattered to you.
just have to trust you? pffft. would you trust me on any issue?
 
"the 'economy' wouldn't have lost shit. GM and its shareholders would have lost and tough shit for them."

That's insanely laughable. I'm not even trying to be insulting. You may as well say, "I really don't understand this thing called the American economy...can you help?"

I mean, I really don't even know how to address something like that. If GM tanked, at a time when the economy was at its lowest ebb, the ripple effect would have been enormous....
 
"the 'economy' wouldn't have lost shit. GM and its shareholders would have lost and tough shit for them."

That's insanely laughable. I'm not even trying to be insulting. You may as well say, "I really don't understand this thing called the American economy...can you help?"

I mean, I really don't even know how to address something like that. If GM tanked, at a time when the economy was at its lowest ebb, the ripple effect would have been enormous....

don't even try it. by throwing money at a problem that SOME of us knew it wasn't going to fix (we tried to tell you), all you did was throw good money after bad. Would the economy have taken a hit after GM went down? hell yes. don't take my statement for saying it wouldn't, but it wouldn't have been a taxpayer loss of 23 billion. The 'ripple' effect would not be anywhere near as enormous as you think it would be. If you have something concrete to show otherwise, then please show it. anything else is just an opinion and no matter how smart you may be, you cannot predict that accurately.
 
Another laughable Obama Dem. fuck-up....

A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline.

A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year.

So, the average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.

They claim 700,000 vehicles –– so that's 224 million gallons / year.

That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil. 5 million barrels of oil is about ¼ of one day's US consumption. And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $75/bbl.

So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $350 million.

How good a deal was that ???

But just think, they'll probably do a great job with health care.
 
don't even try it. by throwing money at a problem that SOME of us knew it wasn't going to fix (we tried to tell you), all you did was throw good money after bad. Would the economy have taken a hit after GM went down? hell yes. don't take my statement for saying it wouldn't, but it wouldn't have been a taxpayer loss of 23 billion. The 'ripple' effect would not be anywhere near as enormous as you think it would be. If you have something concrete to show otherwise, then please show it. anything else is just an opinion and no matter how smart you may be, you cannot predict that accurately.

It's true that my opinion is just that, and can never be "proven" now, but plenty certainly agree with it.

We're not just talking GM; we're talking about all of their suppliers & dealers & producers & everyone else with a direct relationship to the company - I think I saw about 33 states just on the supplier chain. The job losses alone would be staggering, but then there are all of the business affected indirectly by those job losses. One large town in OH completely disappeared after DHL domestic went under. Restaurants, retailers, services, et al. There are foreclosures, exoduses, repossessions. More people lose jobs, less money is pumped into the economy, more layoffs occur.

Like I said, $23 billion is peanuts. The economy lost $2 trillion in a 3 month span last year alone. Most taxpayers would have lost a lot more if GM went under; nothing exists in a vacuum.

But it is just my opinion...
 
It's true that my opinion is just that, and can never be "proven" now, but plenty certainly agree with it.

We're not just talking GM; we're talking about all of their suppliers & dealers & producers & everyone else with a direct relationship to the company - I think I saw about 33 states just on the supplier chain. The job losses alone would be staggering, but then there are all of the business affected indirectly by those job losses. One large town in OH completely disappeared after DHL domestic went under. Restaurants, retailers, services, et al. There are foreclosures, exoduses, repossessions. More people lose jobs, less money is pumped into the economy, more layoffs occur.

Like I said, $23 billion is peanuts. The economy lost $2 trillion in a 3 month span last year alone. Most taxpayers would have lost a lot more if GM went under; nothing exists in a vacuum.

But it is just my opinion...

so it's your opinion that if a business becomes 'too big to fail', then the taxpayers should be beholden to pay it's cost of not failing? If that's the case, we've gone way beyond anything this country was supposed to be and might as well just rip up the constitution and the US Code.
 
Back
Top