When we last checked the status of the federal government's stake in General Motors in September, it owned about 7.3 percent - roughly 101-million shares worth about $3.7 billion - of the automaker. In October, the Fed sold almost a third of its remaining stake, or 29- to 30-million shares valued at about $1.2 billion, The Detroit News reports. Currently the government owns around 71-million shares.

Before the latest sale, the Treasury had recorded a loss of about $9.7 billion on 811 million of the 912-million shares it bought from GM as part of the company's 2009 bailout. So far, the Treasury has recovered $37.2 billion from the loan, with another $2.5 billion or so to be gained from the sale of the remaining 71-million shares.

It's likely the government - and taxpayers - won't be paid back in full for its help in keeping GM afloat, but, of course, the bailout was enacted to save jobs and help stabilize the economy regardless of whether the loan was paid back in full or not.

If the government continues to sell its stake in GM at a rate of about 20- to 25-million shares a month, it could sell off its remaining GM shares by the end of January - well before its goal of exiting GM by March 2014.


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
  • 113 Comments
      dunce
      • 1 Year Ago
      I do not care if they sell all their shares, i will never buy a GM product. They stole they company from the rightful owners and gave it to the unions.
        barbeo4
        • 1 Year Ago
        @dunce
        all i can say is you picked the right name for yourself
      tiger
      • 1 Year Ago
      Damon, You should be ashamed of yourself! Get your reporting facts correct before posting, GM PAID BACK THE LOANS!!!! albiet, some in the form of stock. You cannot fault GM for the government selling stock at a low price. If they\'d just wait until stock hits a higher $$$, (closing in on $40/share as we speak) then, they would enjoy a bigger return.
        John
        • 1 Year Ago
        @tiger
        GM didn't exactly pay back all the money. The stock was basically IOUs that would result in tax payer losses. When the White House decided to bail out GM they had no intention of ever getting the money back, they wanted the votes. As for those that said it saved all these jobs. The small business lost more jobs that GM would have ever lost, but yet where was their bailout? Why does the government want out of GM, easy because GM wants them out because having a major stake being held by the government is not good for business. So while they are setting on billions in cash reserves, wouldn't you think the right thing would be to buy back the stock at slightly more than they sold it for, giving the taxpayers a little profit on money they loan. Of course, but again, this was never about paying back the money, just like the Chevy Volt was the White Houses justification. How did that one work out.
          • 1 Year Ago
          @John
          [blocked]
      dougsholmes
      • 1 Year Ago
      OK, for all you clueless baggers - redundant, I know - GM's bleeding really began in 2005 which, coincidentally, is when the Bush great recession/real estate bust started. Next, it was the Bush administration that began the GM bailout process beginning with loans in Dec 2008, and then continued by Obama. Had GM gone down, most auto industry experts believe Chrysler and Ford would have gone down to, as suppliers wouldn't have been able to stay in business. Total loss, after the remaining few % points owned by the govt will be in the $6 billion range. A lot to be sure, but certainly worth when examined as a cost/benefit scenario. GM is now profitable, and actually building vehicles that are rated by consumer and auto publications as high or higher than Euro or Asian imports that have certainly relied on their govts for support. This issue is a non-starter except for radical right America and Obama hating malcontents who spend their lives watching and listening to right wing media hucksters. You know who you are.
        Rochester
        • 1 Year Ago
        @dougsholmes
        Look at this... Accurate history and a reasonable assessment on the topic. Who would've thunk it? We'll said, Doug.
        timkinetron
        • 1 Year Ago
        @dougsholmes
        so wrong ...so blind...
        americawakeupnow
        • 1 Year Ago
        @dougsholmes
        And what Bush started Obama continues to promote. And you say why, because both of these parties are owned and controlled by the same consortium. The same people who own and control The Federal Reserve Bank.
          flammablewater
          • 1 Year Ago
          @americawakeupnow
          You know what, it's possible, but Bush was Saturday morning cartoon villain levels of evil. He vetoed a bill that would have raised taxes on cigarettes to pay for health care for children. He vetoed it.
      Renaurd
      • 1 Year Ago
      The auto bailout is the smartest thing this government has done since the decision to pull out of Vietnam.
        Rob J
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Renaurd
        It is too bad they weren't smart enough to try and stop it from happening in the first place.
      Jack1968
      • 1 Year Ago
      The real reason is because the government fleet of cars this year was GM/Chrysler so the sales numbers are all fake and next quarter they will plummet!!! Sell Sell Sell!!!!! good luck
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Jack1968
        [blocked]
      alexkoolur
      • 1 Year Ago
      who wrote this nonsense Obama himself? Since when was the goal of the bailout to LOSE $ to save jobs. PLEASE! Don't recall that being communicated to tax payers at the time. Must have been the same type of promise like you can keep your healthcare if you want to under obamacare. $9.2 billion LOSS to save which jobs? Who can even prove that any jobs where saved? Doesn't this also mean the investment value back then is worth LESS today, so how did GM rebound? So basically they have not grown AT ALL. It's so pathetic and telling of the times how the Gov't throwing away our $ is a casual caveat to the story and also makes it sound like that's what is supposed to happen and EVEN WORSE makes it sound like THAT WAS THE PLAN ALL ALONG AND WE, THE TAXPAYER AGREE WITH IT. Obama and the rest of these liberal hacks need to go. Everything they try to "engineer" ends up failing.
        jmwinters
        • 1 Year Ago
        @alexkoolur
        Saved jobs? Look at all of the assembly plants, corporate offices, dealer networks, and suppliers that are still operating today and employing people. THAT is saving jobs. Those jobs would have ceased to exist if GM liquidated.
        • 1 Year Ago
        @alexkoolur
        [blocked]
          spsb47
          • 1 Year Ago
          I am a designer at a tier 1 company, supplying tooling for GM parts. Yes, we had contracts. No, they were not going to be paid, prior to the bankruptcy. We are a relatively small shop, yet produce some of the best tooling for multiple, top global companies. At the time, we had GM tooling sitting in our storage, and employees being laid off. Without the bailout, the tooling that took thousands of hours to design, manufacture and assemble was nothing more than scrap metal and a huge loss to the company. As employees, our future looked a bit dismal. Granted, we have other customers, but GM is one of the largest companies we do business with. Once, the dust settled and GM had purchasing power again, a few revamps to their engine line spurred a lot of work for shops everywhere like us. This, along with a slight revival to the auto industry as a whole, brought some of my highest grossing years. Not all work is done internally at large corporations, and we are living proof of that. I take pride in knowing that the work I do for is of very high quality and especially when I think about how what we do affects the vehicles being driven by Americans everyday. I'm sorry for your WorldCom stock and that you did not sell when you should have. But hopefully, you do know what this bailout meant for hard working people such as myself and the people I see everyday.
        Mark Samuels
        • 1 Year Ago
        @alexkoolur
        Educate yourself, it was Bush who designed, and TARP, and began the auto bailout, not Obama. When those who lack the metnal capacity to comprehend the truth, finally awaken from their coma's, maybe the country will begin to right itself. As for Liberals, we are the highest earners in the country, without us, every Conservative state would be floundering, given all but one takes more in entitlements than they pay in taxes. It's conservatives whose policies have failed the country,beginning with Reagans Tax Reform Act of 1983, when he gained the authority to become the first to drain the Social Security surplus. but wait there's more, before he drained the fund, he increased the mandatory contributions to ensure it was flush with cash, hoping to pay for his tax cuts, it failed.
      JIM J
      • 1 Year Ago
      On what planet is this a good deal for the taxpayers (that would be me...and you)? The government buys the stock at $70/share, sells back the first batch at $26/share, the second at $36/share and in January...well, who knows, but it won't anywhere near $70. Suppose we should be happy because as soon as QE ends, and at some point it will, GM stock (along with the market in general) will take a hit that will make us long for the "hit" of 2008. If the General had been allowed to "go under" it wouldn't mean we wouldn't have GM cars, it would mean GM could restructure in a positive way and wouldn't have to pay $76/hour/worker (total package cost plus health care for life for older, retired employees). The Government actually gave Preferred Stock to the Union...TOTALLY against the law. Preferred stock are the physical assets of the company. My neighbor was one of those evil "white collar" workers for GM. He was 90 days away from retirement when this thing went to the mat. He had $750K in his retirement account. After the bail out he had $15K. The union leaders hate the white collar folks and the settled agreement was about revenge. So now GM - and they make some excellent products BTW - are right back where they started; corporate has too many chiefs and not enough Indians, too many dealerships, too many products for the 26% market share they possess. They are trying to run the company as they did when they we in control of over 50% of the market. Without government interference they would have restructured and came away in a much stronger position and able to more effectively compete on the world stage. At the moment it's same old, same old because the government had to take care of it's strongest supporting group, a bandaid approach to what needed to be done.
        Darrel K
        • 1 Year Ago
        @JIM J
        That's a Romney speech also. What nobody considers is/was if GM filed bankruptcy you would have seen the midwest hit with what would have appeared to be the 1930's. This effect would have soon hit all corners of the US - the bailout was to keep the country from collapsing not allow a Union to take control of a company. I have 2 Neice's that got jobs at GM - they are the new work force. $18 & $20 an hour. Gone are the starting new hire rates of $45 and they are constantly trying to shove older workers out the door.
          John
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Darrel K
          They bailout was about buying votes. The US would never had collapsed because GM went bankrupt, that is wrong on so many levels. At the time of the bailout the US had about 10MM unemployed. GM has about 75K employees. If they went bankrupt they wouldn't quit producing product they would have done some cut backs. Once the company got healthy, it would start hiring. Hmm, isn't that what they did as you even stated about your Neices. The real benefactors of the bail out are the GM management and the man sitting in the White House. The taxpayer was left holding the bag. Also put that into perspective that what the US taxpayer will lose comes out to about $270,000 per US GM employee (conservative estimate). At $45/hr that is nearly 3yrs of salary . At that $20/hr rate you are looking at nearly 7yrs.
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Darrel K
          [blocked]
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Darrel K
          [blocked]
          barbeo4
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Darrel K
          here in Flint the newhires and there have been over 2000 hire in at 14.50 an hour with NO pension and very little healthcare that they pay for
          JIM J
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Darrel K
          Darrel, Your right and I'm fully aware new hires begin at a significantly lower cost to the company than the old timers, I'll certainly give you that ($55/hour vs. $75 company cost), but legacy costs are really hurting GM and Ford alike. As for the Midwest looking like the '30s, well, I'm a very strong believer the country is much more resilient than that. As the saying goes, you can pay me now or you can pay me later....and later is ALWAYS more painful. QE pumps $85B into the economy per month and a Senator recently suggested we need to increase that to $200B a month. The only thing that comes to mind is "are you nuts." Look around your home - what do you have that is made in the U.S. Did you know that NO electronic devices are solely made in the U.S. None! The focus should be, not that everyone "buy American," but what policies are in place that make moving our businesses overseas (i.e. outsourcing) the smart move. As a country we need to make it easier for business to do business, to make the smart play investing in America, not overseas. When goods/services/labor cost more because of government regulation (and yes labor costs), as a country we become less competitive and businesses can't make a fair profit (6-9%). Lord help us if we continue QE because sooner or later we will see inflation the likes of which make the 20% during the Carter years look enviable...and if the world ever goes off the dollar standard - look around, China and Russia and others are moving away from the dollar. If it ever happens, well, your concern about the Midwest will be chump change. It's unfortunate we are so short sighted. No company is too big to fail as you seem to be saying. It happens. Yes it hurts, but from it all a stronger company emerges and we are all better off.
          balugablue21
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Darrel K
          were do you people get these rates $45 dollars...... I wish
          Krondor
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Darrel K
          Jim, Your statement "No Electronic Devices are made in the US" is factually incorrect. You need to watch yourself with blanket generalizations. Apple, Google, Lenovo (Chinese owned), and Motorola (Google Subsidiary now), are manufacturing products in the US. See; http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/24/4549624/made-in-america-2-behind-new-tech-patriotism Now it is true all components are not built here, but many are. I believe the NexusQ (failed Google product) was 100% here. In fact many government systems are 100% here for reasons of security. Consumer is a harder proposition. The world economy isn't a level playing field. China is competing without pollution regulations, a massive underpaid workforce, etc... The GM example as well isn't apples to apples. Foreign auto makers have existed with government backing and exploitation of the aforementioned. GM is far better post bailout than before (just look at the products they are turning out). I get what you're saying about companies emerging stronger, but the GM bailout wouldn't have ended up that way. It would have ended up in liquidation with massive ripples throughout the industry particularly in the midwest region.
        balugablue21
        • 1 Year Ago
        @JIM J
        well Jim you are wrong. I lost $7000 a year on my pension and now the Gov't owns my pension. I really have no ties to GM except thru my health care and that is in a trust owned by the Unions. which I have no control over either. So forget about the $76 dollar package, it's a misnomer.
          barbeo4
          • 1 Year Ago
          @balugablue21
          balugablue ......tell me again how you lost 7k from your pension
        barbeo4
        • 1 Year Ago
        @JIM J
        He had $750K in his retirement account. After the bail out he had $15K. maybe tell your freind he should of had someone that knows money run his 401k cause he sure didnt know how to
        barbeo4
        • 1 Year Ago
        @JIM J
        jim j here's another fact for you those legacy costs you talk about like healthcare for retirees GM has got rid of those....thats right GM has NOTHING to do anymore with reitree healthcare saving them billions a year
        barbeo4
        • 1 Year Ago
        @JIM J
        jim j that was 54 dollars a share the government paid not 70
      dan.bardon
      • 1 Year Ago
      the unions created the middle class. enough said.
        Cool Disco Dan
        • 1 Year Ago
        @dan.bardon
        Thats not true unless you are actually ignorant enough to believe there were only the dirt poor and mega rich before the unions started. Capitalism and free markets create a middle class.
      flammablewater
      • 1 Year Ago
      So we have 5 months left to get all the Government Motors remarks out of our systems. I'll start: Bah! More like Government Motors! Am I right?
        • 1 Year Ago
        @flammablewater
        [blocked]
      jrant
      • 1 Year Ago
      ........."saved jobs, etc"........ for a certain privileged class................general motors is dead, mr vp......union motors is alive.....and '''''the unions saved the middle class"?...hahahahahahahahaha
      John
      • 1 Year Ago
      The US taxpayer will lose out on north of 20 billion dollars for the purpose of saving jobs. Get real. When a company the size of GM goes bankrupt, they shut their doors and stop producing products. They go through an improvement plan. WIll some jobs be lost yes. But usually these are only temporary. This was all about buying votes at the taxpayers expense. If the US wanted to help GM, they should have given them a loan not bought common stock. Just another reason why the deficit has exploded.
        barbeo4
        • 1 Year Ago
        @John
        john you need money to go bankrupt.....and NO ONE was gonna give GM any money at the time so guess what GM liquidates sells everything to pay its debt....now their supplyers lost 25% of sales so now ford goes down cause they cant get parts they need now supplyers are out 45% of sales so they start falling out it goes on and on millions of jobs would have been lost
      wpriebe249
      • 1 Year Ago
      I have heard that the government has spent $1.3M for every job saved. For $1.3M, the government can have my job.
    • Load More Comments