The Detroit News reports that the US Treasury sold off around 17.2 million shares of General Motors stock in February worth $489 million. The move is part of a plan to rid the government of GM stock by March, 2014. All told, the government has regained $29.8 billion of the $49.5 billion it took to bail out GM in 2008 and 2009. The feds sold off nearly half the country's stake in the automaker when the company went public in 2010, and now taxpayers own around 19 percent of the manufacturer. Moving forward, the Treasury will disclose how many shares it has sold each financial quarter.

Earlier this year, the government named Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. to manage the sale of GM stock. The duo will receive around $3 million for handling the sale, though the government has opted to keep its trading plan under wraps to keep hedge funds from taking advantage of the situation. The plan does place limits on exactly how much stock can be sold at any given time, however. Six smaller brokerages will handle the sale of the Treasury's GM common stock.



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
  • 28 Comments
      AngeloD
      • 1 Year Ago
      $20 Billion directly from the taxpayers to the UAW. Where in the Constitution is the Federal Government given authority to undertake ANY of the actions we saw during the economic collapse engineered by Goldman Sachs Bank and JP Morgan Bank back in 2007? Public (Taxpayer) money used to bail out private companies in order to benefit private organizations like the UAW and Goldman Sachs. The term for this type of arrangement is Fascism.
        axiomatik
        • 1 Year Ago
        @AngeloD
        Ugh, I'm so tired of the "UAW giveaway" complaints. Do you know what would happen if the UAW wasn't given those shares? The pensions systems would have failed (they were already underfunded by tens of Billions of dollars) and then the taxpayers would have been on the hook for paying the UAW pensions because the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (a government agency) would have had to take over the pensions. Would you rather have taxpayers paying UAW pensions for the next 50 years?
          • 1 Year Ago
          @axiomatik
          [blocked]
      • 1 Year Ago
      [blocked]
      Street King
      • 1 Year Ago
      Sweet! Now the money can go from saving jobs to being pissed away on a war or given to a foreign Country! What will the haters have to complain about now?
      Szientific
      • 1 Year Ago
      You can bet that the same misinformed folks complaining about the shares being sold at a loss were the same ones that screamed the 'Government Motors' the loudest.
        J
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Szientific
        The shares are being sold at a loss. That's not misinformation; it's simply accurate. You can argue it was worth it anyway and that it saved jobs, etc. (and that those things have financial benefits). However, GM and (old) GMAC are huge takers compared to the other companies bailed out at the same time. The gov't actually made a profit on most of the bank bailouts; the same can't be said here.
      gfviperman
      • 1 Year Ago
      This was NOT a good deal for taxpayers and stockholders ...
      porsche911gt3r
      • 1 Year Ago
      Seems like everything the Government touches recently results in a "loss". The bailouts were nothing more than a hand out to the UAW at the expense of the US taxpayers. Oh and speaking of taxes, they got a gift in 2011, paying ZERO taxes on 7 billion in profits. Chrony capitalism at its finest. GM is still at a competitive disadvantage in terms of labor, still above the relatively high wages that Toyota pays. They need to close that gap and be cheaper than the competition to be sucessful long term
      Ron McCord
      • 1 Year Ago
      A sign of a great country is their industrial output., Cars are a basic indicator 1st world countries like Japan, germany and usa, along with Sweden produce cars. Africa Latin America not so much. Too lose Gm and Chrysler would of been devastating and that is one bailout I was for. Now bailing out other countries around the world I am against, Iraq and AFghanistan, Colombia, and over 100 others that receive American money every year that is ridiculous and obviously us tax payers can do nothing about it.
        johnnythemoney
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Ron McCord
        You do realize how much all countries get back for "helping" (aka, buying into) other countries, ironically those with enormous natural resources or strategic positions? it's not like governments are charity entities, if they do something it's definitely for a profit. Sure it doesn't always go as planned. It would be like saying the Government gave $ 50 billion to GM and just managed to get back 30 of them, while the true story is that they saved much more than the present cost of the operation ($ 20 billion right now) in the process.
          avconsumer2
          • 1 Year Ago
          @johnnythemoney
          K... but next time YOU'RE at a casino... if you don't check yourself before you hit the NEGATIVE SEVENTEEN TRILLION DOLLAR mark... buddy... I mean, I understand you have to spend money to make money - but we passed the "gullible" mark trillions of dollars ago. I'd like to officially like to extend you an invitation to the common sense club.
      Avinash Machado
      • 1 Year Ago
      Soon Laser will no longer be able to use the term "Government Motors".
        axiomatik
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Avinash Machado
        He still uses the term VaporVolt, 27 months after the Volt went on sale.
      • 1 Year Ago
      [blocked]
      Meef
      • 1 Year Ago
      Loosing them would have hurt, instead we've spread the misery of salvaging them on to ourselves for the rest of our lives(most likely) and on the future generations of poorly (gov) educated children that will eventually have to pay that tab. Declaring a traditional bankruptcy would have been sufficient for them to survive, by giving them an illegal "bailout" bankruptcy like they got from their "douche" of choice(all politicians at this point are little more than the person we prefer to have lying to us) we allowed the parasite(union) to become the host. GM, FORD, CHRYSLER doesn't matter they are all being eaten by the same cancer. Want to cure this, don't allow any executive retirement payouts in the US government or these manufacturers over the level of director, until the difference between 29m and 49.5m is paid back to the tax payers. They took 60c from every one of you, working tax SHEEP(that are in the 53% that actually pay FED taxes), AND borrowed 40c on every dollar from someone else to allow this to happen. Our government should NEVER bail out a private corporation, but now the lines are blurred just like they(left) wants them, you can't kill GM without killing the union, the union pics it's winner(who it will give more $ too each election) then it will tell you how weak they are, even though union members are less than 9% of the U.S. economy, they will be very vocal in telling you they should have benefits like congress members so there members kids don't have to pay back there student loans. Your kids should be hounded until there death for the student loan money regardless of bankruptcy for them(bankruptcy for you near commoners)still have to be paid even in bankrupcy, but congress's kids are simply better than yours and don't have to pay it back. Once you have subscribed to letting the gov treat ANYONE "special" or differently than the rest you have already subscribed to allowing bigotry, favoritism, nepotism, racism, and perversion of the intent of fairness. Example: progressive tax system - best example of built in unfairness. The one and ONLY FAIR Tax for everyone is a single (FLAT) percentage such as: 25%, no exceptions marginal or capital income tax. The bleeding hearts will say for poor people they should get less, because that percentage amounts to more of there "disposable" income. That is true, but disposable is just that, everything they NEED minus the $ they want to get something they probably don't NEED. The conservatives will say hell yeah, this would be better, but guys like warren buffet and bill gates will still NOT pay as much as you think cause even most conservatives live on what they NEED, and go WITHOUT when they don't have the discretionary $ to pay for something they WANT, where as a liberal will just go in debt and cry when they can't pay it back and say it's not there fault, they are the victim.
    • Load More Comments