The United States Treasury has shuffled another 135 to 137 million shares of General Motors stock as it continues its exit from the Detroit-based manufacturer. According to The Detroit News, the July sale netted the government $876.9 million, which was valued between $34 and $37 per share.

The government's initial 61-percent stake in GM has been pared down considerably in the post-bailout world, with Uncle Sam holding half a billion shares at the end of 2012. Since then, 17.2 million shares were shed in a February sale, while GM bought back 200 million shares in December, with a further 300 million to be moved "through various means in an orderly fashion." At the current rate, the Treasury should be rid of its remaining shares within the next six months, which fits the government's initial time table of a 12- to 15-month exit.

The News also reports that the government has regained $34.6 billion of its $49.5 billion bailout, beating a February estimate that claimed $20.3 billion in losses. While that's great news, as we reported a few weeks back, the price of GM's shares needs to climb to $95.51 for the Treasury to break even. As of this morning's trading, GM shares are down 30 cents, at $35.68 per share.


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
  • 68 Comments
      MikeInNC
      • 1 Year Ago
      The unions are out in full force on this thread down voting anything that they don't agree with. It's useless to even reply to anything. You must agree with them or your comment is crushed with negative votes. This mentality is bearing fruit in the City of Detroit. Keep hitting that thumbs down fellow UAW komrades as all the cities with the strongest union memberships (private and public) start circling the drain. No connection made I'm sure. Let the down voting bonanza begin. Each one is a badge of honor for logic and common sense.
      Matt
      • 1 Year Ago
      I'm no fan of corporate welfare, but if we can send $70 biliion PER YEAR in foreign aid to countries like Congo, Jordan, and Pakistan, we should be able to justify a one-time loss of $20 billion for GM.
        yyz
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Matt
        Way to justify flushing our money down the toilet. $20 billion....... just chump change, right?
          Porsche4life
          • 1 Year Ago
          @yyz
          You don't think theyr flushing your money down the toilet when they send money to other countries and send money to help the terrorist that distoryed this country in the first place that are now destroying Syria. Atleast this is an American company they can take my money to help them get up!
          • 1 Year Ago
          @yyz
          [blocked]
          • 1 Year Ago
          @yyz
          [blocked]
      • 1 Year Ago
      [blocked]
        OptimusPrimeRib
        • 1 Year Ago
        you seem like a cranky old white person that only listens to what Fox News and the Tea Party tells you. And if you want to talk a =bout a government program that screwed the tax payers check out the F-35 program. That will really rustle your jimmies. How about giving a corporation $1 trillion with a T for inoperable planes.
        • 1 Year Ago
        [blocked]
        tiger
        • 1 Year Ago
        Those were interest free loans my friend. Just like the $700B given to the banks.
          raktmn
          • 1 Year Ago
          @tiger
          historic lending rates from the fed discount window: http://www.newyorkfed.org/banking/discountwindow.html
      bigbluebrock
      • 1 Year Ago
      taking into consideration the retained tax revenues from the continued employment of all GM employees and the employees of it's suppliers, not to mention the corporate taxes GM has and will pay, the government has more than broke even on this "investment."
        See_York_Chin
        • 1 Year Ago
        @bigbluebrock
        Why not read a book or something, why not learn. Any sale lost by GM would have went to a surviving company, any supplier would have been replaced by a new one and every worker fired would have been rehired by remaining companies (who survive simply because they make better cars) GM did not die because of economy or what have you.................they make bad cars, plain and simple, see Aztek and Cavalier.........no one wanted those so the company had to close the shop.
          Julius
          • 1 Year Ago
          @See_York_Chin
          @ See_York_Chin: I still fail to see how your economics work. First, any surviving company would have to double their sales just to make up any shortfall the loss of GM, Chrysler and Ford would have made. Plus, the two likely candidates - Toyota and Honda - share US suppliers with the others. And many models.that the imports make don't match up.to what would be lost - pickup trucks in particular. So to say the imports would have just "jumped in" is ludicrous... especially when many imports have models that don't pass US standards and can't legally be sold here without certification. And those effects would be felt throughout the economy - remember, many pickups are bought by business people - contractors, etc. There's absolutely no way Tundra and Titan production can expand ten- or twenty-fold without serious impact on our economy... and remember, these are "consumable" items to companies - many can't afford to not have a reliable truck around, and vehicles do wear out. Besides, it would be problematic to say that the major suppliers would have "switched overnight", especially since many designs have a long lead time just to tool up for. In any case, no supplier in their right mind would expand on their own without firm orders in hand, which the imports were not providing; so to say the jobs "would be there right away" is wrong.
          tiger
          • 1 Year Ago
          @See_York_Chin
          Hey dummy, you say \"they MAKE bad cars...Aztek and Cavalier\" While I agree these were bad cars, they do not MAKE them anymoew. Yes, they MADE bad cars, but they no longer MAKE bad cars. They make world class cars now. Why not read a book or something, why not learn? You also say no one wanted them. Thats not true. There are still MILLIONS of Cavaliers on the road. Unfortunately, there are still tens of thousands of Azteks on the road too. If you don\'t believe me, check out Polk Data.
          Julius
          • 1 Year Ago
          @See_York_Chin
          Odd that you point out two models that ceased to exist years before the bankruptcy. In fact, the surviving portfolio of GM was actually a reason the Government kept it whole, rather than selling it off like Chrysler. And please tell me: "sales lost by GM would have went to a surviving company" - what surviving company could afford to take up a third to a half of the US domestic market at once? Even mighty Toyota wasn't in a profit-making mode at the time. New cars would have been priced out of the market, as the only viable candidates would have been the net importers who are not reliant on domestic suppliers - which ironically would have excluded Toyota and Honda, two of the bigger remaining nameplates. So would what you say about job re-creation have happened? Yes, over perhaps a decade or two - and without a major upheaval in the US market. In the meanwhile, the US taxpayer would have been saddled with the unemployment, healthcare and pensions of the old companies and the bankrupt suppliers. Perhaps YOU should read about who underwrites unemployment, healthcare and pensions for the folks that would have been left on the street. At $15 billion, the Government and the taxpayer might have gotten off cheap. Besides, start-ups in the auto business are rare - for every Tesla, there's a Coda, or Fisker, or Carbon, or Mahindra, or Suzuki... and none of them would make up for the volume that GM or Chrysler represent.
          See_York_Chin
          • 1 Year Ago
          @See_York_Chin
          Rak, it's a GLOBAL economy, it does not matter where company is based. Google is based in USA, yet keeps European profits in Europe.................you are not seeing a penny of that. Toyota North America keeps R&D and profits and production here in USA. Again, bailout was a union bailout.
      Justin
      • 1 Year Ago
      This was a hell of a lot better investment than the big bank bailout.
        J
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Justin
        Actually, the feds made money on the bank bailout.
        Matt
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Justin
        True. A lot of people would miss GM, but I doubt anyone would shed a tear for AIG, BoA, or Citi.
      See_York_Chin
      • 1 Year Ago
      So when am i getting my money back? Should i check my mail now or 50 years from now?
        tiger
        • 1 Year Ago
        @See_York_Chin
        Did you loose your job as a directly or indirectly as a result of the bankruptcy? If No, then you got your money back. USA would be a third-world country by now if GM and Chrysler went belly-up.
          tiger
          • 1 Year Ago
          @tiger
          I like how AB doesn\'t allow a reply to a reply. Anyhow.... Sea Urchin, (I like how you keep changing your name), Evidently, the answer to my question is NO. It doesn\'t take a study in economics to understand the dire consequences that would have taken place had the United States largest manufacturing base simply vanished.
          See_York_Chin
          • 1 Year Ago
          @tiger
          Sorry, you need to take basic economics classes.
        raktmn
        • 1 Year Ago
        @See_York_Chin
        Collectively across all the bailout programs, you will have gotten your money back, within approx the next 2 years or sooner. Somewhere between 1-2 years from now, we will start making a profit from the combined bailout programs, despite some companies never paying back their individual bailouts. Don't worry, I'm sure you will find something else to rant about even after the bailouts are paid for and collectively making a profit after just 6 or so years. Just bottle up that rage for later.
      Porsche4life
      • 1 Year Ago
      Go GM
      See_York_Chin
      • 1 Year Ago
      In other news JC Penney is about to go belly up, are we about to bail it out, can some one check who the CEO contributed to.
      icemilkcoffee
      • 1 Year Ago
      Given the way Ackerson has been bumbling around, I would get out while I can too.
      tiger
      • 1 Year Ago
      Where the heck is Laser? Her parents must have taken away her internet privledges.
        • 1 Year Ago
        @tiger
        [blocked]
      tiger
      • 1 Year Ago
      $14.9B, which will be under $10B, or less, once all the shares are sold. I would say that was a good investment. Especially when continued tax dollars roll in from all the employees being able to keep their jobs rather than standing in the unemployment line. Much more than $10B would have been spent in unemployment and lost tax revenue. I know that is going to be a hard fact for Laser to wrap his pea-brain around but there is no getting around the facts. GENERAL Motors for life!
      John
      • 1 Year Ago
      whether you like it or not, admit the government completely turmed the auto industry around
        See_York_Chin
        • 1 Year Ago
        @John
        I can turn any company around as well by absorbing all the liabilities.................
        protovici
        • 1 Year Ago
        @John
        No, hard working Americans, domestic makers making better vehicles, and opening up the credit field for buyers helped turn around the auto industry. Chapter 11 is completely misunderstood and can help a company still remain open. Government wanted votes, so what do they do when they want them, print money and give it away like candy so the little kids can keep going back for more. Whether you like it or not, US Gov wasted a ton of money.
    • Load More Comments