True to its word, the US Treasury Department has taken steps today to rid itself of its remaining 300-million shares of General Motors stock. The Treasury has engaged both JP Morgan and Citigroup Global Markets to handle the sale of the remaining shares, reports the Detroit Free Press.

After divesting itself of 200 million shares last month, the government agency said that it would shed its remaining investment in the automaker throughout 2013. Today, the Treasury still owns some 19 percent of GM.

When the Treasury sold stock back to GM last month, it was at a price of some $27.50 per share, or above what the issue was then trading at in the open market. More recently, GM stock has been seeing closer to $29 per share in the marketplace, offering some hope that the final "cost" to the taxpayer will be less than expected. With that said, the plan remains to sell off in segments, rather than all at once, as a way of disrupting the market as little as possible.

Obama officials are on record has having said that, even if the US Government ultimately loses money on the investment in GM stock – a virtual certainty according to the reports we've read so far – the jobs saved by the automaker bailout make this a net win for the country.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 50 Comments
      J
      • 1 Year Ago
      Last I saw, of the big companies bailed out, the only ones that have cost the government money are GM and the artist formerly known as GMAC. Ugh. Hopefully this mess never happens again.
      British_Rover
      • 1 Year Ago
      There was no debtor in possession financing available when GM was going under. Typically when a company restructures in chapter 11 they borrow the money to do it from the financial markets. Does anyone remember what the financial markets were like in early 2009? Hint they were frozen. No one could get financing even for relatively small amounts of money. There was no M&A going around unless it was all cash and not even much cash M&A, there were no leveraged buy outs, there was no liquidity in the market. This was true on the retail level, on the wholesale level and on the large scale corporate level. Just as an example I had people with high 700 credit scores be denied in early 2009 from borrowing sub 30,000 dollars for a car when they made over 250,000 and had debt to income ratios below 25%. The banks were terrified to loan to anyone. Dealerships were going under because banks didn't want to provide floorplan financing anymore. The only institution with sufficient borrowing power to come up with the money was the US/Canadian gov'ts. There money they set up the rules.
        British_Rover
        • 1 Year Ago
        @British_Rover
        And I screwed up my there should be their. There are you happy.
          Smilez1105
          • 1 Year Ago
          @British_Rover
          "There are you happy" should have had a comma after 'there' and a question mark at the end. Just joking, trying to lighten the hatred mood that's overflowing on this thread. Happy Friday everyone.
      • 1 Year Ago
      [blocked]
        darkness
        • 1 Year Ago
        No retard they exist because we have jobs and we pay the UAW dipshit.
      scion_tc
      • 1 Year Ago
      I hope they force the UAW to purchase it at fully price to break even. I refuse to ever, EVER consider a UAW product. Looking at you too FORD.
      Army Casualty
      • 1 Year Ago
      If GM's stock will never gain back its value, meaning the gov could at least break even on the deal, then it was clearly never worth saving anyway. It's very wearying hearing the BS justification nonsense from the ignorant that this "saved" the US auto-industry. It did not. Bankruptcy was still required, businesses and dealers still had to shut down and lose jobs. Even *if* it was true that more dealers would've shut down without the gov bailout, not only is that arbitrarily UNFAIR to the employees who did lose their jobs, the basic principal is this: The Fed should never prop up private companies. The beauty of Capitalism is it automatically tears down the bloated bad business that becomes corrupt, as much as it allows one from come from nothing and become wealthy and successful through hardwork and ingenuity. The government should never prop up bad business. It perpetuates bad business instead of letting it die and sets a bad example. Do you think the execs of those companies learned a lesson and cut their bonuses out? Do you think the Unions learned the harm they cause by being bloated? No. Instead they learned they can cry in the governments beer and the government will pay their tab. This is childish nonsense, which responsible hardworking adults realize. Forget partisanship. Use common sense.
      LiteNRG1
      • 1 Year Ago
      As shareholders, aren't we earning dividends for owning GM stock? If so, why sell? We are actually earning $, whats wrong with that?
        darkness
        • 1 Year Ago
        @LiteNRG1
        @LiteNRG1............Republicans
        icon149
        • 1 Year Ago
        @LiteNRG1
        no to mention GM is in the best shape it's been in in years and the auto market as a whole is starting to recover nicely. I see a lot of upside potential for GM in the next couple of years... nothing remarkable, but more than likely market beating. Of course the US government is so far in debt right now that i'm sure this is just a way to pay it's bills for anther couple of days while congress argues about the debt ceiling... oops. So yeah the US tax payers get hosed in the deal because congress can't get there house in order. i'm sure we would have always lost money in the deal, but i'll wager we wouldn't have needed to lose as much as we will selling right now.
        Tourian
        • 1 Year Ago
        @LiteNRG1
        Because there are plenty of Americans who can\'t stand the idea of our government owning shares in a private company. So they buy competitor vehicles without even considering a GM product (or Chrysler). Sellinf won\'t change their minds though, but GM will officially be on its own and the goverment can concentrate on something else. It is just a PR move.
      artandcolour2010
      • 1 Year Ago
      Again, not a single reference to President Obama, only "Obama." Yet whenever an Autoblog article mentions the war criminal Dubya, it is always with deference, President Bush. Perhaps at least one of your employees could take Journalism 101 which states that the first time a subject is mentioned, his full name and title, if applicable, is used. But I guess if you're a gutless Republican, who cares about journalistic ethics, right? Pathetic.
      • 1 Year Ago
      [blocked]
      Brewman15
      • 1 Year Ago
      I'm very happy to hear this even if it only means the death of the moronic term 'Government Motors'. The horse is dead... quit beating it. Whether you like it or not, the bailout allowed GM to still be here today. Everyone can speculate all they want if that GM went bankrupt without a bailout they could have restructured, the GM bankruptcy would not have affected the rest of the industry, or that the economy would have been better/worse without the bailout, but no one simply knows. The government decided to do the bailout, and it worked ... GM is still here. Yes, the bailout cost the US tax payers money, but it was still WAY cheaper than the two wars our last fearless leader piled onto the national debt, which arguably did little to nothing to help the US taxpayers, and at least none of our soldiers were killed because of it. Finally, it will take time for GM to make a full turn around and regain market share. Do people not realize it takes years to develop a car? So, really we are just now starting to see any car model that began development post-bankruptcy, and if I recall correctly GM is supposed to launch several new cars this year, but I can't remember the actual number. Okay, rant over. Now, if people will just stop making the also moronic Fiat joke whenever an article about Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep/SRT is posted...
      Chris
      • 1 Year Ago
      Altho' I'm a "capitalist", I can see the reasons for supporting the bailouts. But why doesn't the government hold onto the stock and get some gains out of it, then sell it. You know the old adage: "buy low, sell high". Or at least "higher"...make some returns for us poor taxpayers!
        Brodz
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Chris
        It was never about return on investment, it was always about saving a manufacturing powerhouse. Thousands of jobs, and money coming back into the government. So they've saved the money flow, and lost a few hundred million on the shares, it was an easy decision to make, and they handled it well.
          razorpit
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Brodz
          Sir Duke you have some fuzzy math going on there. What you just described would be like me charging you to come work for me, and then I give you a fraction of that money back in the form of a paycheck. Would you be happy with that?
          mao893kim
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Brodz
          Wow, talk about naive... US taxpayers looking to lose about $35bn from GM bailout. Obama claims it saved 1mn jobs (which I think is grossly overstated but whatever). That brings the cost per job saved to $35,000. Totally not worth it Not to mention, Government Motors is still consistently losing market share in the US.
          Avinash Machado
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Brodz
          Exactly.
          Julius
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Brodz
          It's interesting to listen to people quote "cost per job saved", and yet fail to mention ongoing taxes paid by those that still have their jobs, or discount the costs of the taxpayer (e.g. "us") paying the unemployment insurance for those same people...
          razorpit
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Brodz
          Sorry but GM is no longer a "manufacturing powerhouse". If they were they wouldn't need a government bailout. Sure, they employ a ton of people but that's about it. A powerhouse is someone who defines a category of product and sets the standards for others to follow.
      Sargegxp
      • 1 Year Ago
      Anti American foreign car buyers are why we needed a bailout to begin with. Go worship your 3 series
        chirowolf
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Sargegxp
        Teh American way is to make a good product and people will beat a path to your door. Phone it in and people have other choices. Settle for what Detroit had be crapping out our choose something better. Nothing more American than that.
      Patrick
      • 1 Year Ago
      Great. Now what about our national debt?
    • Load More Comments