The US Treasury has announced a $9.7 billion loss on the $49.5 billion it used to bailout General Motors in 2009, according to a report from the The Detroit News, which in turn cites the quarterly report from the Special Inspector General of the Troubled Asset Relief Program to Congress.

The Treasury's original stake in GM saw it taking 912 million shares or 60.8 percent of the company in the bailout, numbers which have since fallen considerably. Since 2009, the Feds have sold off 811 million shares, and now own less than seven percent of the resurgent GM.

According to The Detroit News, in order for the government to break even on its original investment in GM, its remaining shares would need to sell for $147.95. That would be a significant jump from the projections made back in July and very unlikely to happen in the short-term, as the automaker is trading at $36.04, as of this writing. If the stock maintains its price, the total loss for taxpayers when all is said in done should be around $10 billion.


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
  • 136 Comments
      Justin
      • 1 Year Ago
      Seems like a good investment to me. The number of jobs and related industries that would have been crushed had they gone under completely eclipses this comparably small loss. We waste way more money on way less and never get anything in return. If only we put as much into infrastructure.
        1STH
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Justin
        you're forgetting that there are a LOT of people who hate the people of this country and do and not want to save people's jobs....they only care about themselves....because they are selfish scum. those people are the: Tea Party.
          rlog100
          • 1 Year Ago
          @1STH
          @Zaki, Are you impressed by Japan, majorly socialist, who ate our lunch in trade, and China, communist, who has pretty much finished off anything they left? Internally, Socialism is a world of fail, but in context of trade victory goes to the central planner everytime.
          1454
          • 1 Year Ago
          @1STH
          Are you really one to talk about educated? Seriously? My god, I have forgotten more than you will ever know, much less dropped out of anything. Let me guess, if you do have a degree it's probably in what, gen ed? Criminal justice? OOOOOOO. I could have aced those without showing up to a single class. Actually, I did just that to the couple of business classes I took while pursuing my BSME. So please, ill ask again, ST.....F....U
          Alfonso T. Alvarez
          • 1 Year Ago
          @1STH
          "1454 You're flat out ignorant. LEARN THE BANKRUPTCY LAWS OR S_TF...U" Wow, just wow!! You are so sadly moronic that it boggles the mind!! Why don't you just go back to your lame-a$$ kindergarten school of pathetic-knuckleheads-be-we that you flunked out of and leave the educated world behind!!
      550PlusX5
      • 1 Year Ago
      Government Motors at it's finest !
      cartonlul
      • 1 Year Ago
      I am appalled at all the supporters of GM; you know, the company that robbed all of the American work force. I can only assume the positive comments are from poor, lazy peasants that don't work, live off the government, and don't pay taxes. If I were in your tattered shoes I would feel the same way, but that doesn't mean it's not absolutely pathetic.
      Toddley
      • 1 Year Ago
      So, the same cost as a day or two in Iraq.
        Clipper44
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Toddley
        Incorrect.
          VL00
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Clipper44
          Depends how you calculate it. The all-in cost for Iraq (including disability payments for decades, etc) is around $1 Trillion. War was about 3200 days, which is $312 Million per day, so 31 days.
      nocommie11
      • 1 Year Ago
      Could have knocked me over with a feather on such shocking news. UAW thieves and leeches.
      Zaki
      • 1 Year Ago
      No problemo!!! Uncle Sam can just raise the taxes on hard working morons like me to make up for "their" loss. Yeah, bail out the Billion dollar companies on the backs of the working class! Awesome job and keep up the good work fellas!
        Alfonso T. Alvarez
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Zaki
        So - your $67.00 that saved hundreds of thousands of jobs in the US shouldn't have been spent as you would have been far, far ahead by having your lame income reduced by 75% or more?? OK!!
          1454
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Alfonso T. Alvarez
          IT DIDN"T SAVE ANY JOBS THAT WOULDN"T HAVE OTHERWISE BEEN LOST.
          NBCARGUY
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Alfonso T. Alvarez
          "1454 IT DIDN"T SAVE ANY JOBS THAT WOULDN"T HAVE OTHERWISE BEEN LOST". how do you figure, if there was no bailout GM would have gone under and taken the suppliers with them as they are the biggest customer for suppliers. the problem with not seeing the bailout in context of 2008 and the credit crunch understates the danger that it caused the econ. Billion of dollars of value was wiped out in a matter of weeks if it had gone on for 6 month without government intervention who is to say what would have happened
      Cool Disco Dan
      • 1 Year Ago
      AT this point its all Monopoly money anyway.
      1454
      • 1 Year Ago
      To all the idiots claiming "oh, the same cost as X/Y/Z", SHUT UP. Think for a second. Maybe if we eliminated all these "X/Y/Z" programs/wars/bailouts, we might have a fiscally responsible government that isn't having to rack up trillions more in debt every year to cover the deficits we run. Just saying. Think before you speak. I personally would rather run surpluses during the "good" years to offset deficits during the "bad".
        VL00
        • 1 Year Ago
        @1454
        Then you should never vote Republican
        Zoom
        • 1 Year Ago
        @1454
        When we have surpluses everyone wants a tax cut. Al gore actually wanted to use the surplus to pay down the debt. No one remembers that.
          Jerry
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Zoom
          Nobody seems to remember Bush cashing out the surplus in tax rebates to everyone after the 2000 elections either.
        Bandit5317
        • 1 Year Ago
        @1454
        I agree completely, but it would've been worse if they hadn't bailed them out. Hundreds of thousands of people directly and indirectly receive their livelihood from GM, and now GM is thriving again.
      ChrisD
      • 1 Year Ago
      Bush/Obama, Republican/Democrat it doesn't matter, they are all still a part of the rich and powerful club.
      IfIWereObama
      • 1 Year Ago
      GM was not actually saved..the only ones saved was the unions. GM STILL went bankrupt after they got our money. The government then took over the bankruptcy, instead of allowing it thru the normal bankruptcy proceedings and favored it heavily towards the unions...absolutely screwing millions of Americans who had 401k's, pensions, and life savings that invested in GM stocks and bonds. It's ironic that they screwed many other union & private pension plans to help auto unions. The lie that all GM jobs would just go away in a bankruptcy is a such a joke. Large corporations do that all the time & come out stronger. You also forget that unions are the main reason that GM was in trouble in the 1st place.
        darkness
        • 1 Year Ago
        @IfIWereObama
        Yes people making 50 grand a year bankrupted a multi billion dollar company, wow to be retarded is a gift from republican Jesus.
          1454
          • 1 Year Ago
          @darkness
          Labor costs are generally the highest operating costs to any firm. I'm guessing you must be a manufacturing employee with that mindset? Because you clearly don't have a clue what things cost.
          1454
          • 1 Year Ago
          @darkness
          Also, it's not just about the dollars paid out. You aren't factoring benefits to go along with the cost to pay "a 50k employee" to bankrupt a multibillion dollar company. Lastly, management also plays a part, if you build crappy products and live off your "trucks" that is generally how things go down.
          Daniel D
          • 1 Year Ago
          @darkness
          So 1454 we lower the wages of ordinary Americans to third world standards. Question. Who then buys the cars?
        Julius
        • 1 Year Ago
        @IfIWereObama
        "Large corporations do that all the time & come out stronger." Please demonstrate. American Airlines required $3.25 Billion in Financing. GM required 20 times that. As for the banks, they got more money - but they also merged with other banks. Which car company do you think would have absorbed the remnants of GM? Toyota itself was getting a $2B "export loan" from the Japanese government and was still in the red. Why would it spend the money buying a dead car company - even for pennies on the dollar?
        Daniel D
        • 1 Year Ago
        @IfIWereObama
        Having drive some GM vehicles over the years, I can assure you GM had more problems than just the unions. Indeed some models would suggest that was the least of GM's worries.
      v6sonoma
      • 1 Year Ago
      Considering the damage that would have been done to the economy had they not, $10 billion isn't that bad. Sure no one wanted to go that route but we did and the results are we are in far better shape then we would have been.
      protovici
      • 1 Year Ago
      From a pure financial perspective what a complete waste of tax payer dollars regardless of political influence people might have. Bush and Obama to blame for the loss on this one.
        Kronos
        • 1 Year Ago
        @protovici
        For a "pure financial perspective" you'd need to consider the overall impact, including the increased tax revenue from the economic activity generated by averting a complete shutdown.
          1454
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Kronos
          THERE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN A COMPLETE SHUTDOWN. Geez people, get your heads out of your butt. They would have gone through bankruptcy, probably have force the unions to take concessions in bankruptcy, all the while continue to operate as if nothing happened. They ended up in bankruptcy anyway, and we still took a multibillion dollar bath on the deal. (Even if, as Dan above correctly says, it's all monopoly money anyway.)
          Julius
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Kronos
          @ protovici: Chapter 11 only zero-balances debt. It does not by itself provide money for operations going forward. That's what the $50 Billion the Government provided in exchange for ownership was for.
        Alfonso T. Alvarez
        • 1 Year Ago
        @protovici
        Wow, just wow - how little you know about the ramifications of allowing our auto industry to collapse - yet every other country in the world would not allow this to happen! You should just be totally ashamed of yourself for your ludicrous comment!
          1454
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Alfonso T. Alvarez
          No, you should be ashamed for not having a clue what you are talking about. Just hit those talking points. Just like a good little government puppet. I'm tired of this same stupid, ludicrous argument that doesn't hold water on it's surface. It doesn't even come close to making sense. GM would have been allowed to RESTRUCTURE under Ch. 11 bankruptcy. You know, just like they did months later. And we would have been in a better position as a country financially. Not leaps and bounds better, but better. Stop with the idiotic comments that you have no evidence to back up.
          NBCARGUY
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Alfonso T. Alvarez
          repy is for 1454, where would the money have come from to finance GM's bankruptcy, lets remember what happen in 2008, bear sterns failed kick off the credit crunch of 2008-2009. During the time period no was lending; hence the bailout of AIG; which had steady cash flow and asset, but was unable to get short term financing as no one was leading; so after seeing what happen to Bear Sterns the government step in to stop the global econ from going in the toilet.
    • Load More Comments