Special Inspector General Christy Romero has delivered another report to Congress on the state of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) up to June 6 of this year, assessing numbers to the US Treasury's remaining stake in General Motors. After stock sales in February and another a few months later, the Fed is still the owner of 14 percent of GM, totaling 189 million shares, and is $18.1 billion in the hole after the $49.5 billion loan to the automaker. Although the share price has risen more than 20 percent this year to $37.08 at the time of writing, Romero's latest calculations indicate it would need to climb to $95.51 for the government to be made whole. In May of this year that number was $70 per share.

GM stock is on the rise, but no one expects it to reach that number before the government's self-imposed deadline for being divested of the stock. If sold right now, Treasury would make about $7 billion and wash its hands of the rest. Analysts expect GM's stock to continue rising so that $7 billion number should also climb and the loss get trimmed, but even with another 25-percent gain between now and April, when the government is expected to be fully divested, that would only get it to $46 per share.

GM will be looking forward to next April, probably no matter where its stock price is, if for no other reason than to have ammunition removed from the "Government Motors" grousers. For now, it can point to the Center of Automotive Research study that declared everyone's already been paid back plus interest, because "the cost of doing nothing was not zero."


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
  • 121 Comments
      johnnythemoney
      • 1 Year Ago
      Not again...
      • 1 Year Ago
      [blocked]
      churchmotor
      • 1 Year Ago
      Wow, so something that Obammy has dumped billions into is only worth 1/3 third of his estimate. Typical. When you hire someone with ZERO experience other than "organizing" people to vote, what do you expect.
        • 1 Year Ago
        @churchmotor
        [blocked]
          tegdesign
          • 1 Year Ago
          Hahaha! They say sarcasm doesn't come through on the computer screen but you nailed it!
        Sir Duke
        • 1 Year Ago
        @churchmotor
        Wow, so something that Obammy has dumped billions into is only worth 1/3 third of his estimate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, but only to the blind and the stupid. The impact of saving GM is not absolute. As a former tax account, I worked for an insurance company that employed 2,700 people across 40 states, every two weeks I had to make a payroll tax remittance to the Federal Reserve Bank. The average remittance check was approx. 975,000.00 and that was back in 1988. I won't even hazard a guess at what companies the size of GM and Chrysler sends to the FRB per pay period. This is not a one time remittance. So, if they haven't already recovered all of the money given to GM & Chrysler, they will do so in your lifetime. They will collect ALL of it, many times over. Providing these companies, stay in business, they will be remitting checks to the FRB long after you and I leave this earth.
          Sir Duke
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Sir Duke
          BTW: If you are 1 mins. late with the remittance, there is a 10% penalty.
        • 1 Year Ago
        @churchmotor
        [blocked]
          • 1 Year Ago
          [blocked]
        icemilkcoffee
        • 1 Year Ago
        @churchmotor
        Your favorite President Boy George lost $6 billion in Iraq. I dont mean lost as in misspent or lost as in fraud. The Bush administration lost $30-$60 billion in Iraq due to fraud and errors. They plain LOST $6 billion in cash - they comploetely have zero idea what happened to that $6 billion in cash. LOST as in Ooooopsie dooosie- I thought you had it! You can start lecturing when your side finds the $6 billion.
          rcavaretti
          • 1 Year Ago
          @icemilkcoffee
          No they didn't. It's in Halliburton's savings account.
      • 1 Year Ago
      [blocked]
      Robt
      • 1 Year Ago
      Please stop referring to, 'The government losing etc." It's our money that GM has flushed down the toilet and we ain't getting it back.
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Robt
        [blocked]
          • 1 Year Ago
          [blocked]
          churchmotor
          • 1 Year Ago
          Yes, Tickle-me-elmo is THAT dumb.
          • 1 Year Ago
          [blocked]
          • 1 Year Ago
          [blocked]
          • 1 Year Ago
          [blocked]
      dibster
      • 1 Year Ago
      The treasury is a joke, we already far exceeded our debt limit.. the bean counters can't count because the politicians tell them what number they want them to say. http://www.etfguide.com/commentary/1092/Has-the-U.S.-Treasury-Already-Exceeded-the-Debt-Limit?/ The unions got saved so they could help push for Obamacare, which they now don't want... but at least they got a piece of the company.
      • 1 Year Ago
      [blocked]
        Rotation
        • 1 Year Ago
        They paid off their loans. This is equity, not loans. The distinction comes into play now when talking about breaking even but when talking about what is owed. Companies don't owe their shareholders. If you buy Exxon-Mobil at $80 and it drops to $60 Exxon-Mobil doesn't owe you $20. You didn't break even, but no one owes you anything. The government took equity in GM and has sold that equity at prices which are not high enough to break even. They have done this because the government sees divesting from GM as a higher priority than breaking even.
          icon149
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Rotation
          Thanks Rotation. I believe at some point before the gov. started divesting GM shares the break even point was at $50 dollars, (it think it was like 54 something but i can't remember). If the gov held on instead of selling low, they would actually have a chance of breaking even, or cutting the loss to a pretty insignificant number when you consider the taxes they have collecting on the payroll and profits of GM. Of course since it's all just funny money anyway who cares, they can print more.
      BipDBo
      • 1 Year Ago
      I'm not a fan of the government bailing out companies, but we need to be fair in our analysis of this. If GM had gone belly up, the treasury would have lost a lot of tax revenue; corporate, payroll, individual income etc., due to job losses not just from GM but also many suppliers, dealers, etc. At the same time, the treasury would have had to dish out a lot of unemployment benefits. I'd bet that in the end, the treasury, so far, has been much better off with the bailout.
        • 1 Year Ago
        @BipDBo
        [blocked]
          David MacGillis
          • 1 Year Ago
          I see you conveniently forget lead times, and the impact the loss of GM would have on the North American supply base. For Ford or any other competitor to step in would have taken at least 4 years. Meanwhile the protracted depression would have destroyed the North American auto industry, probably in less than 24 months as the suppliers went bankrupt and were liquidated.
          Autoblogist
          • 1 Year Ago
          Your comment is borderline idiotic and it's obvious by your screen name, you're out to troll.
      mikeybyte1
      • 1 Year Ago
      Thanks AB. Queue the Big Gumment left/right screaming and finger pointing posts. Like it or not, most economists said that not saving them would have been a bigger blow to the economy than letting them tank. Just like the too big to fail banks that trashed Wall Street. They had to be saved. The question is what lessons were learned and what, if any, changes were made to prevent it from happening again.
        Nathan
        • 1 Year Ago
        @mikeybyte1
        Most economists said there was no housing bubble, most economists are big government Keynesians and have yet to be correct about anything. Amazing how the Austrian school of economics was the only one to foresee these repeated disasters yet the ones who missed it are tasked with the recovery from a melt down they said wouldn't happen.
          icemilkcoffee
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Nathan
          The housing bubble was not the problem. The housing market is always going through cycles. That is nothing new or unusual. The problem was the derivatives- the subprime mortgage backed CDOs and CDSs that were either insurance policies, or casino bets, depending on how you looked at it. The austrian economists have no solutions to any of these issues. Trust the free market is not a solution to anything. Letting the recession take its course is not a solution.
          rcavaretti
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Nathan
          Too many people want to conveniently forget about the derivative complication in the crash. And to date, no one has gone to jail over that scam.
          raktmn
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Nathan
          What economists are you talking about? Economists like the IMF, Forbes, BusinessWeek, etc were all talking about the dangers of the housing bubble going all the way back to 2003!!! There are literally 10's of thousands of news stories talking about the housing bubble from 2003-2007. You had to be in a cave to miss a new economist every week talking about the housing bubble long before it burst. The only folks who were saying there was no housing bubble were real-estate people and Republican talking heads who wanted us all to think "The fundamentals of the economy are strong" so they could keep getting elected. Don't blame the economists because you chose to get your news from right-wing echo chambers that kept repeating BS that wasn't true and you bought into it. Don't confuse covering your ears and shouting "lalala, I can't hear you" with nobody warning you.
      knightrider_6
      • 1 Year Ago
      Remember when the Republicans held the debt ceiling hostage and caused a downgrade of our credit rating? That cost us $200 Billion. I'll give you a minute to let it sink in. Republicans wasted $200 Billion just to satisfy their inflated ego.
        ngiotta
        • 1 Year Ago
        @knightrider_6
        Let me guess, you got that figure from MSNBC, Huffington Post or Politico? Those are about as reliable as Fox News. Someone has to stop the spending madness. Granted, the Republicans are doing this just in spite of Obama, but the many is indeed spending more money than "Dubya" did and that's without the 2 expensive wars we were fighting. Obama always talks about how Bush "put 2 wars on a credit card". That is definitely true. What he doesn't say is that he is putting *everything* on a credit card. Defense and government both need cuts until we can at least cut our deficit by 2/3.
      churchmotor
      • 1 Year Ago
      it's really comical to read the B.S. propaganda being spread by the UAW. This bailout was not a YES/NO proposition. Obama skirted the LAWS of the bankruptcy courts. Obama kicked creditors to the curb. Obama kicked salaried people to the curb. Obama awarded his union Democrat Dues paying thugs the keys to GM and Chrysler. It was total payback for the ground efforts in getting this crook elected. A proper bankruptcy would have a much stronger GM in a healthy position. But no, GM will soon be back ******* at the teet of government handouts to pay the bills they can't afford.
      BGJ
      • 1 Year Ago
      Why is it that everyone expects the car companies to pay back the government, while not expecting any of the trillions owed to us by the banks to be paid back? Blows my mind. By the way, when government spends money the intent is not to be paid back. It is spent for the common good. Do you expect the military to pay money back on the billions spent every month in defense of our country? No, it is spent in the name of government, which is us, to benefit all of us. Whether the money is spent to prop up a foreign dictator, or to prop up a failing economy, it really does benefit all of us regardless if you agree with it or not. Just shut up and pay your taxes! LOL
        Nathan
        • 1 Year Ago
        @BGJ
        "As of December 31, 2012, the Treasury had received over $405 billion in total cash back on TARP investments, equaling nearly a non-inflation-adjusted 97 percent of the $418 billion disbursed under the program.[3]" With more money on the way. I don't think government money should have gone to banks or GM or anyone else, but your argument is incorrect.
        raktmn
        • 1 Year Ago
        @BGJ
        "Trillions" of gov't loans are you talking about? The only loans from the Gov't to the banks were done through the TARP program which was actually 13 programs. Of those 13 programs, only 2 of those programs were for banks. The total amount that was loaned to banks was 244.9 Billion (1/4 Trillion, not Trillions). Of that we've gotten more than that back. TARP's bank programs earned significant positive returns for taxpayers. As of June 30, 2013, Treasury has recovered more than $271 billion through repayments and other income -- more than $26 billion more than the $245 billion originally invested. The $26 billion in profits from the bank loans will be more than enough to cover the ~$10 billion in losses from GM.
          raktmn
          • 1 Year Ago
          @raktmn
          Then clearly he doesn't understand that the Federal Banks are privately owned, and are not funded by the taxpayers or owned by the government. Not a single penny of Fed Bank money is taxpayer money, and they aren't part of the gov't.
          David MacGillis
          • 1 Year Ago
          @raktmn
          In addition to this, a huge portion of the reason that this happened was the banks crashing the credit system in the first place.
    • Load More Comments