• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Chrysler reports strongest quarter in 13 years

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CLite

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,726
7
76
Not one bit.

IIRC, GM had ads that stated they did pay the government loan early. In reality, they still owe big time (totally overall amount).

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/27/ed-whitacre/ceo-says-gm-has-repaid-government-loans-full/



and Obama, GM, and their backers surely did not tell the taxpayers this.
You linked an article from April, 2010 which is quite out-dated

outdated article said:
But the U.S. government is still on the hook for the bulk of its investment in GM. Again, the U.S. Treasury owns $2.1 billion in preferred stock and a 60.8 percent stake in the company. GM plans an initial public offering (IPO) as soon as this summer, and the government plans to sell off its interest in the company over time. The better the company does, the more the government looks to recoup. But the prospects for the government getting all its money back don't look promising.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/g-m-buys-back-2-1-billion-preferred-shares/

non-ancient article said:
The United States Treasury says General Motors has repurchased the rest of the preferred shares owned by the government for $2.1 billion.

G.M. bought the 84 million shares for $25.50 a piece, 2 percent more than their liquidation value. The company said it would book a $700 million charge related to the buyback early next year.

After G.M.’s initial public offering last month netted $13.5 billion for taxpayers, the buyback brings to $23.1 billion the amount the company has repaid out of $49.5 billion the government invested in a bailout.

Article Tools

E-mail Print4 Comments
Recommend
Share
TUMBLRDIGGLINKEDINREDDITPERMALINK
Twitter
Related Links

Treasury Press Release »
General Motors, like Chrysler, received emergency funds starting at the end of 2008, but the company filed for bankruptcy in mid-2009. Since then, American taxpayers have been, in President Obama’s words, “reluctant shareholders” in the company.

The government still holds more than 500 million shares of G.M. common stock with a value of $16.6 billion.
The government still has a 33% ownership, 500 million shares, and is doing it's best to unwind.

Yes, overall the government will be in the red if it sold it's 33% ownership right now, but not at the dire levels predicted by many. If the company continues the trend of profit making, (last year making $7.6B profit, beating it's previous record holder in 1997 of $6.7B), then hopefully the stock price will slowly increase as a solid blue-chipper and the government can break even.

Of course those that are un-American may wish it to fail, but let us patriots hope for the success of American companies.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
I'm with you in letting capitalism run it's course, most of the time.
But I have to ask the question, if Best Buy closed up shop tomorrow, would it take an entire sector of industry with it?
Would all of the companies that supply them, Amazon, Costco and so many others go bankrupt as well?

We both know the answer is no.
That is the big difference between what was happened with the auto industry bailouts and just about anything else.
Ah, so automakers are too big to fail?

Shouldn't we be splitting them back up then? Oldsmobile, Pontiac and Saturn should have been kept alive and spun off along with Buick. Cadillac and Lincoln should have to stand on their own feet. Force Dodge, Jeep and Chrysler to split.

Then we can put massive amounts of automaker regulation into affect specifying exactly what types of cars they're allowed to sell at what prices and for what kind of profit.

Hell, if it's good enough for the banks it's good enough for Detroit.
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,216
1,028
126
You linked an article from April, 2010 which is quite out-dated



http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/g-m-buys-back-2-1-billion-preferred-shares/



The government still has a 33% ownership, 500 million shares, and is doing it's best to unwind.

Yes, overall the government will be in the red if it sold it's 33% ownership right now, but not at the dire levels predicted by many. If the company continues the trend of profit making, (last year making $7.6B profit, beating it's previous record holder in 1997 of $6.7B), then hopefully the stock price will slowly increase as a solid blue-chipper and the government can break even.

Of course those that are un-American may wish it to fail, but let us patriots hope for the success of American companies.
The point was I tried to show how GM did not tell the whole truth about their ads of "prepaid the government loan in full and before it was due". (post #38).

Even with your link:
then hopefully the stock price will slowly increase as a solid blue-chipper and the government can break even.
Hopefully, the Volt will do better too. :D

Time will tell.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
Ah, so automakers are too big to fail?

Shouldn't we be splitting them back up then? Oldsmobile, Pontiac and Saturn should have been kept alive and spun off along with Buick. Cadillac and Lincoln should have to stand on their own feet. Force Dodge, Jeep and Chrysler to split.

Then we can put massive amounts of automaker regulation into affect specifying exactly what types of cars they're allowed to sell at what prices and for what kind of profit.

Hell, if it's good enough for the banks it's good enough for Detroit.
When did they split the banks up? I missed that memo.
 

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,641
57
91
Ah, so automakers are too big to fail?

Shouldn't we be splitting them back up then? Oldsmobile, Pontiac and Saturn should have been kept alive and spun off along with Buick. Cadillac and Lincoln should have to stand on their own feet. Force Dodge, Jeep and Chrysler to split.

Then we can put massive amounts of automaker regulation into affect specifying exactly what types of cars they're allowed to sell at what prices and for what kind of profit.

Hell, if it's good enough for the banks it's good enough for Detroit.
I don't see a problem with what you are suggesting.
 

TheSlamma

Diamond Member
Sep 6, 2005
7,628
4
81
GOP policies and Cerberus, run by Bush's treasury secretary, brought Chrysler to its knees.
No, crap cars that only appeal to Ricky racers out on the road that guzzle gas like mad and have zero practicality brought them to their knees twice in 30 years.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
When did they split the banks up? I missed that memo.
They didn't, but I've heard plenty of Democrats complain that there's too much consolidation in a few major banks and that they need to be broken up.

Do you disagree? You like these behemoth banks?
 
Jul 10, 2007
12,060
3
0
Romney and Ryan are going to crash the US economy with their austerity experiments, like the Europeans crashed theirs. Then Romney can let Chrysler go bankrupt. And not just Chrysler, also part makers like Dana in Ohio and American Midwest that also were part of the auto rescue plan.
yeah, just keep kicking the can down the road and let the next generation clean up the mess.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,737
4,600
126
yeah, just keep kicking the can down the road and let the next generation clean up the mess.
Future generations would not to be better off if we lost the US automotive industry and had millions of people, including parents of that future generation, out of work. Future generations are better off with a profitable Chrysler and GM, which will repay their loans while employing millions of Americans, than they would be if the government borrowed money to pay those millions of Americans unemployment benefits.
Romney/Ryan policies would have been strictly worse for America. All pain, no gain.
 

Ketchup

Elite Member
Sep 1, 2002
14,495
219
106
I love how the government creates agencies that help bring companies to it's knees, and then "have" to buy them out because they are "too big to fail."

I also love reading all the posts of the liberal talking points, in case we had forgotten.

Chrysler makes some of the crappiest cars money can by. They have as long as I can remember. As has been mentioned previously, that have gone above an extremely low bar. No one should be impressed.

The government did not 'have' to bail out anyone, but I doubt many socialists replying to this thread would understand that.
 
Last edited:

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,216
1,028
126
Future generations would not to be better off if we lost the US automotive industry and had millions of people, including parents of that future generation, out of work. Future generations are better off with a profitable Chrysler and GM, which will repay their loans while employing millions of Americans, than they would be if the government borrowed money to pay those millions of Americans unemployment benefits.
Romney/Ryan policies would have been strictly worse for America. All pain, no gain.
Will? Are you sure? Like how Solada will become the next BIG green thing and all good and all rosy? (remember Obama did a tour and told us so) :D How Volt will be the next big thing?

On the serious side, I said it before and I will said it again. We can NOT keep on spending with the same rate we are doing now. I don't care you are D, R, I, or whatever. The math won't add up.
 
Last edited:

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,737
4,600
126
Will? Are you sure? Like how Solada will become the next BIG green thing and all good and all rosy? (remember Obama did a tour and told us so) :D How Volt will be the next big thing?

On the serious side, I said it before and I will said it again. We can NOT keep on spending with the same rate we are doing now. I don't care you are D, R, I, or whatever. The math won't add up.
WTF is Solada? GM is repaying its loans, and so is Chrysler. So yeah, it's all good and rosy. If you don't want to spend at the same rate, you should be in favor of loans that get repaid while employing people, instead of unemployment and welfare that won't be repaid.
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,216
1,028
126
WTF is Solada? GM is repaying its loans, and so is Chrysler. So yeah, it's all good and rosy. If you don't want to spend at the same rate, you should be in favor of loans that get repaid while employing people, instead of unemployment and welfare that won't be repaid.
Solyndra, my bad.

See my links above. GM and Chrysler still owe huge amounts. We will see if they WILL pay all back as you claim.

I am talking about the whole spending budget of the US. We are borrowing 40 cents out of each dollar. Let see how that will continue. Not too long I reckon.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
55,972
4,319
126
WTF? Since when are Korean cars considered poor quality? This is 2012.
Korean cars have always been poorly built...they're getting better, but they still don't hold their resale value...so much so in fact that Hyundai had to "guarantee their resale value."

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/04/hyundai-guarantees-resale-values/

Of course, that "guarantee" only applies if you trade your Hyundai in on another Hyundai...


Are you serious? I have never heard of this. That's why all warranties usually show quality.
Longer warranties are just a hook to get people to buy their cars...it doesn't imply BETTER quality, just that the manufacturer is willing to stand behind them longer.
With the reputation Hyundai and Kia have built for themselves, why would anyone buy one without SOME kind of guarantee that they'll last longer than a Yugo?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,737
4,600
126
Solyndra, my bad.

See my links above. GM and Chrysler still owe huge amounts. We will see if they WILL pay all back as you claim.

I am talking about the whole spending budget of the US. We are borrowing 40 cents out of each dollar. Let see how that will continue. Not too long I reckon.
We know for sure that unemployment for hundreds of thousands of people WOULD NOT have been paid back, had Chrysler and GM liquidated. Right now, they are repaying their loans on schedule, maybe even ahead of it. If you can lend some money to avoid spending that money, you should be for it, if you are so concerned with our debt.
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,216
1,028
126
We know for sure that unemployment for hundreds of thousands of people WOULD NOT have been paid back, had Chrysler and GM liquidated. Right now, they are repaying their loans on schedule, maybe even ahead of it. If you can lend some money to avoid spending that money, you should be for it, if you are so concerned with our debt.
As I said, time will tell if your definite statement of "WILL PAY BACK" will be true or not.

Funny no one that support the bailout mentioned this, how UAW gets such a sweet heart deal. Must be coincident, right? Nothing to do with payback for campaign contribution and support. Naaaaaaaahhh :D

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124338330278956585.html

The government's proposed restructuring plans benefit one class of retirees at the expense of another. I understand that we each have equal claims in bankruptcy. However, under the current plan GM's union retirees will receive 39% of the restructured company and $10 billion in cash in exchange for $20 billion in claims. Bondholders, however, receive a mere 10% for $27 billion in claims in the form of stock (and no cash).
and http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503983_162-5022352-503983.html

and http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124105303238271343.html
 
Last edited:

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
We know for sure that unemployment for hundreds of thousands of people WOULD NOT have been paid back, had Chrysler and GM liquidated. Right now, they are repaying their loans on schedule, maybe even ahead of it. If you can lend some money to avoid spending that money, you should be for it, if you are so concerned with our debt.
In 2009 GM notified 1100 Dealerships, many of them very profitable that they were to no longer carry any General Motors products. Same year Chrysler says it wants to close 789 dealerships. There's probably 40,000 jobs right there.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
11,694
2,911
136
LOL, every time there's good news coming out of the US auto industry it just smacks the crap out of the doom and gloom crowd that viscerally hates the unions that have helped the US auto industry get back on its feet.

So much for that tired old "the unions are killing the auto industry" myth.

The unions are still there and the auto makers are making profits. What was previously posted about "the auto makers produced an undesireable product is what got them into trouble" is the real truth of the matter. The union haters simply used to their advantage that irresistable opportunity they saw when the economy tanked to try and bust the automobile unions by having the auto manufacturers go bankrupt.

I guess that's why Obama is on their most hated shit list.

Never mind that thousands upon thousands of middle income folks would have been unemployed, not to mention the multitude of non-union businesses whose employees would have lost their homes and suffered grievous financial harm.

Watch for the spin the Repubs are going to put on the recovery going on in the auto industry now that it looks like the worst is over....for now. It should be fun to see how that unfolds. It sure is fun watching it happen in this thread.:D
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,085
493
126
Would you feel the same way if your favorite defense contractor was going down the tubes?
I dont have a favorite defense contractor. And of course I would feel the same way. Why should a defense contractor get govt help because they ran their business into the ground?
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
With the shoddy quality of MOST Chinese products, we can only hope that Chinese cars never hit American shores.
Most of the cars above were of pretty poor quality when they first were imported to the US...Korean cars are still considered to be of poor quality.
I can attest to this seeing their workmanship in the Plastic Injection Mold Industry.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
I dont have a favorite defense contractor. And of course I would feel the same way. Why should a defense contractor get govt help because they ran their business into the ground?
Hmm you must not be a Neocon then... interesting.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
They didn't, but I've heard plenty of Democrats complain that there's too much consolidation in a few major banks and that they need to be broken up.

Do you disagree? You like these behemoth banks?
You must not have read any of my posts addressing TBTF and the Financial crisis.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Chrysler brought Chrysler to its knees for the 2nd time in 30 years.
I have to wonder: these folks that think the Democrats are right on every issue and the GOP is responsible for every ill conceivable - are they truly conscious and self-aware? Their entire reasoning (such as it is) can quite easily and reliably be modeled on the most primitive of computers, and no one would argue that even the most advanced computer is conscious and self-aware. For that matter, it should be possible to train an ape or a gray parrot to demonstrate the exact same decision tree. Setting aside the moral aspect, can these people truly be considered to be, well, people?

America FUCK YEAH! Oops I mean ITALY fuck yeah! I agree with the GOP on this one, they should have let GM and Chrysler sink. They would have been replaced by something more efficient eventually (and Ford didn't need a bailout).
Most Chryslers are still built (or at least assembled) in the USA, and arguably the manufacturing and engineering jobs are more important that the ownership. Also, Chrysler was woefully behind the curve on small, efficient cars and engines and had crap management. Fiat was a pretty good match in my opinion.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
LOL, every time there's good news coming out of the US auto industry it just smacks the crap out of the doom and gloom crowd that viscerally hates the unions that have helped the US auto industry get back on its feet.

So much for that tired old "the unions are killing the auto industry" myth.

The unions are still there and the auto makers are making profits. What was previously posted about "the auto makers produced an undesireable product is what got them into trouble" is the real truth of the matter. The union haters simply used to their advantage that irresistable opportunity they saw when the economy tanked to try and bust the automobile unions by having the auto manufacturers go bankrupt.

I guess that's why Obama is on their most hated shit list.

Never mind that thousands upon thousands of middle income folks would have been unemployed, not to mention the multitude of non-union businesses whose employees would have lost their homes and suffered grievous financial harm.

Watch for the spin the Repubs are going to put on the recovery going on in the auto industry now that it looks like the worst is over....for now. It should be fun to see how that unfolds. It sure is fun watching it happen in this thread.:D
How come the largely Government owned GM isn't doing massive hiring here in the US? They are sitting on piles of cash now just like the Liberals are complaining the Rich are doing. Knock yourself out if you want to use the Auto Industry for your Union Poster Child.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY