GM ownership pie chart as of Dec 9, 2013According to a report from CNBC, the US government has sold off the last of its remaining shares in General Motors. Secretary Jack Lew reports that $39 billion of the $49.5 billion investment in GM has been recovered, meaning that the investment, on paper, cost taxpayers a total of $10 billion.

GM CEO Dan Akerson said in a statement, which you can read in full down below, "We will always be grateful for the second chance extended to us and we are doing our best to make the most of it. ... Continued investments, innovation, and job creation are just some of the "returns" of a healthy GM and domestic auto industry." GM stock closed today at $40.90, which is a new record.

Does this mean we've heard the last Government Motors joke? Probably not...
Show full PR text

GM Statement on U.S. Treasury Full Ownership Exit
Attributable to Chairman and CEO Dan Akerson

DETROIT – The following statement is attributable to General Motors Chairman and CEO Dan Akerson:

"The U.S. Treasury's ownership exit closes just one chapter in GM's ongoing turnaround story. We will always be grateful for the second chance extended to us and we are doing our best to make the most of it. Today is not dramatically different from the hundreds of preceding days during which we have worked to make GM a company our country can be proud of again.

"Continued investments, innovation, and job creation are just some of the "returns" of a healthy GM and domestic auto industry. Our work continues uninterrupted, and we will keep our sights squarely on our customers and transforming the way we do business."

About General Motors Co.
General Motors Co. (NYSE:GM, TSX: GMM) and its partners produce vehicles in 30 countries, and the company has leadership positions in the world's largest and fastest-growing automotive markets. GM, its subsidiaries and joint venture entities sell vehicles under the Chevrolet, Cadillac, Baojun, Buick, GMC, Holden, Isuzu, Jiefang, Opel, Vauxhall and Wuling brands. More information on the company and its subsidiaries, including OnStar, a global leader in vehicle safety, security and information services, can be found at http://www.gm.com.


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
  • 234 Comments
      redgpgtp97
      • 1 Year Ago
      According to an CBS news report today, the government received over $450 billion from all loans(bailouts) made during the financial crisis and made a $10 billion dollar profit. So the way it stands, that profit was GM's gift since they theoretically owe the government about that much but won't have to pay it since Uncle Sam decided to sale the remaining stock in GM at todays price of $40.90 per share.
        brandon
        • 1 Year Ago
        @redgpgtp97
        If you believe that then I have some beachfront property in nebraska to sell you.
          thecommentator2013
          • 1 Year Ago
          @brandon
          @brandon Interested in a ski resort in Texas? =D
          brandon
          • 1 Year Ago
          @brandon
          A bargain at 1.4 million. I'll even throw in the appliances.
          knightrider_6
          • 1 Year Ago
          @brandon
          @brandon how about a trade? You give me your imaginary "beach front" property and in return it will tell you all about Trickle Down Economics which creates imaginary jobs by giving tax breaks to rich. Do we have a deal?
      Avinash Machado
      • 1 Year Ago
      Poor Laser is out of a trolling job.
      cpmanx
      • 1 Year Ago
      Welcome my friends. Welcome to Trollville.
      thecommentator2013
      • 1 Year Ago
      I mean, don't you people worry about the really big budget posts?
      Julius
      • 1 Year Ago
      I'm continually amazed to see he many people insist that GM would have been able to go through a "normal bankruptcy", and that it would have survived without government help. For those insisting GM could have survived a normal bankruptcy, please enlighten me which bank would have provided the cash for debtor-in-posession financing... especially since pretty much EVERY large bank got a bailout at the time, too? And as for surviving, how does one get past $50 billion in ongoing monetary needs without wholesale liquidation? What other company would buy a concern as large as GM? Fiat, despite buying Chrysler is still struggling at home in Europe. Oh, and somehow people conveniently forget the nearly 6000 dealers of both Chrysler and GM that would also have been out out of business with a liquidation. The fact that most of these folks are still in business and paying taxes somehow doesn't enter the equation either.
        cpmanx
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Julius
        Julius--thanks for a dose of intelligent reality here. I find it telling that nobody has a meaningful reply to your post. The comments here are full of hypotheticals and analogies (and lots of arrogant puffery), but very few people discussing the actual situation in 2008-2009. The credit markets were largely frozen. Consumer confidence was plummeting. GM was desperately trying to sell assets & liquidate parts of the company to raise cash, but there was nobody to buy--nobody able to buy. Bailing out GM was an unpleasant business. I don't hear anyone suggesting otherwise. But at the time, the alternative was a very scary gamble. The government thought it was OK to let Lehmann Brothers fail, and it nearly took down the whole banking system. Nobody knew what a GM collapse at that time would have meant, and nobody wanted to find out. That is why the government stepped in. Lots of people here are now trying to rewrite history, second guessing a decision that was motivated by a sincere desire to pick the best of an undesirable set of options. I expected nothing less, but the smug self-congratulation and the mean-spiritedness of some of the replies here is quite disheartening.
        brandon
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Julius
        Even if it didn't go through a normal bankruptcy, it still would have been easier for it's creditors to take over and run the company than have the taxpayer take a bath on the losses. The Corp I currently work for was taken over and continued to operate under creditor control for 3 years until they found a buyer for the company. It's ignorant to believe the company would have been liquidated. The creditors would have been more likely to get their money back by allowing the company to continue to operate under creditor control.
          Zoom
          • 1 Year Ago
          @brandon
          The company would've shut down. I don't know how you think "creditors" would have taken over the company. Stockholders aren't going to run the company or pay the bills while it all gets "figure out".
          Julius
          • 1 Year Ago
          @brandon
          "You don't think that the other OEM's, who all use the many of the same suppliers, wouldn't have had auto orders pick up in the event that GM ceased to exist." Several facts get in the way of this: 1) GM at the time had 20% of the market. Add Chrysler and you get a third. When every car company was struggling in the red, why would any CEO voluntarily boost production by 33% without a guarantee of sales? And remember, sales cratered because people were now underwater on their mortgages - which puts a damper on big-ticket item sales. 2) in addition, you say the suppliers could "just switch"... as if that were a simple thing, like flicking a switch. Problem is, why would Toyota - or even Ford - buy a GM designed part? One example: the 2008 Malibu wheel is a 5x110 mm bolt pattern, while the Camry is a 5x114.3. There would have to be a switch-over to completely new tooling, which would take a lot of time and money. Heck, all the automakers have a two-to-four week layover for the annual model change, and that's in the same company, using mostly the same parts. Even in the same company, major changes take time. It took two YEARS to start Leaf production, even at an EXISTING Nissan plant in Tennessee. So expecting a low-margin supplier to be able to wait out that period after a GM shutdown without solid orders in advance is way unrealistic.
          brandon
          • 1 Year Ago
          @brandon
          NO IT WOULDN'T HAVE. http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/bankrupt.htm Geez.
          brandon
          • 1 Year Ago
          @brandon
          I'm not being narrow minded, you people are. You don't think that the other OEM's, who all use the many of the same suppliers, wouldn't have had auto orders pick up in the event that GM ceased to exist. Which would have never actually happened. Please don't give me talking points as they aren't logical. Think for a minute and you will realize that.
          Julius
          • 1 Year Ago
          @brandon
          "It's ignorant to believe the company would have been liquidated. The creditors would have been more likely to get their money back by allowing the company to continue to operate under creditor control." Actually, the bondholders did lose out, and that was part of the complaint. The lawsuits back in 2008 focused on an asset sale (e.g. "liquidation") to pay off the debts. As for the parts issue, most suppliers don't have excess space or molds or assemblies in place, waiting for an order - that's just a waste of money. All of their current processes are focused on the orders they have now, with little slack for a major change. So yes, production would shift... years later, AFTER the suppliers themselves underwent bankruptcies and reorganized.
          brandon
          • 1 Year Ago
          @brandon
          Julius, please actually read what I wrote. Where did I say anything about "switching" anything? Most of the suppliers supply parts for multiple OEMs. Also, I didn't say that a "CEO would boost production by 33%" without basis. However, in the doom and gloom scenario that people like you present, where GM would cease to exist, which it wouldn't have under any circumstance, then the sales that GM would have had would have been then picked up by most of the other remained OEMs. Which would then lead to more parts sales, by the same suppliers that were supplying GM. The patterns, molds, production assemblies are already in place, and would have been regardless of GM's failure, or lack thereof. The production would have just shifted to from GM to Ford, Toyota, VW, etc. I also never said that xyz would use GM's old parts. I explicitly said that production would shift. Just like it does in any industry that loses a primary partner. And all of this is only possible IF GM were liquidated. Which it wouldn't have been. The creditors would have wanted their money, and the best way to have gotten it would have been to go through CH11. (which they did)
          cpmanx
          • 1 Year Ago
          @brandon
          Discussing the GM bankruptcy as if it were a generic business test case, separated from the actual market and actual financial situation of the time, is nonsense--dishonest nonsense, designed to obscure the real issues at hand. You might as well discuss how GM's bankruptcy would have been handled if it had happened during WWII, or in Napoleonic France. Reframing the actual decisions into hypothetical, generic, Business 101 test cases reveals nothing, and offers no basis for intelligently evaluating what the government did well and what it did poorly. Please, let's keep the discussion grounded in reality.
          brandon
          • 1 Year Ago
          @brandon
          Julius, are you an engineer? I'm going to go with no. Because if you were, you would know that once the part patterns, casts, etc. are already made, replicating them is nothing. You already have th blueprints to make more. That is what takes "Years" to make. Since you already have all that, you can give those blueprints to the suppliers that did work for GM and have orders rolling in 2-5 months. Also, even if GM ceased operations, like saab, it would still take a couple of months for the inventory to disappear. So there would be no lag between GM's stock being depleted and the ramp up in production from the other manufacturers. And if Saab can find a buyer, than so would GM. Next is the issue of dealers, they will do exactly what the surplus of dealers that were cut out of GM did. They will either buy franchise licenses in other companies, convert to used sales, or go out of business. However, very few "went out of business", so that argument is weak too. @ the other commentor, What are you talking about? There is always things that can be monday morning QBed. In this case, there are many things that can be. We, the taxpayer, we sold a bill of goods that we didn't want. GM should went though the natural progression of these things.
          Julius
          • 1 Year Ago
          @brandon
          "Since you already have all that, you can give those blueprints to the suppliers that did work for GM and have orders rolling in 2-5 months. Also, even if GM ceased operations, like saab, it would still take a couple of months for the inventory to disappear. So there would be no lag between GM's stock being depleted and the ramp up in production from the other manufacturers." For this, I have an example: Lear shifted their C5 Corvette seat contract to a Lear-owned joint-venture for the 1999 model year. Even though the design hadn't changed, it still took 6-plus months *from contract* to start production. That's for a simple sub-assembly where the only real change was location (same company, same design). They estimated at least 4000 man-hours of additional training just to get the line up and running, beyond the time it would take to source the equipment. That said, *actually getting the contract* takes time, too. Another example was just posted: Alcoa is having issues with supplying the new F-150's aluminum, causing a 6-8 week delay. This is from a company that is a major - arguably THE major - OEM aluminum supplier in the US. If a major tier-1 supplier can't even get the raw material delivered on schedule, imagine all the other ones out there where design and engineering IS an issue. "And if Saab can find a buyer, than so would GM." Saab was 1/10th the size of GM as a whole, and note they JUST restarted low-volume production, nearly 4 years later. And no, I'm not an engineer, but come from a family of them, and my wife worked for a tier-2 supplier.
          axiomatik
          • 1 Year Ago
          @brandon
          @brandon GM could not have simply "continued to run under the control of its bondholders". GM was losing tens of billions of dollars a year. Car sales were cratering month after month. GM couldn't cut costs fast enough to keep up with the losses. In order to keep running, GM needed a massive infusion of cash to keep the lights on. That amount of cash was not available in 2008/2009, the credit market was frozen, banks were fearing their own toxic assets.
        Carpinions
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Julius
        Because some people feel a need to rewrite history in order to feel validated.
        Phlegming Liberal
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Julius
        I don't think the repubs are interested in the truth, or math for that matter. That's why all GOP governors (even good o' Arnold) cuts education first. A dumbed down population is one that's more easily controlled than one that can think for themselves.
          brandon
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Phlegming Liberal
          Wow, this had to take the award for dumbest comment of the day. Let's see, which party has balanced a budget in........well forever? Oh, that's right, NEITHER. Id10t. Speaking of dumb populations, there are just as many poor dumb people that vote for the left, as the dumb white trash in the south that votes for the right. So lets talk about *maths* why don't we. Where are we going to get the money to pay for ACA? How about the newly extended war in afcrapistan? Shall I continue? Grow up and learn to think outside a party, genius.
          knightrider_6
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Phlegming Liberal
          @brandon Bill Clinton had a budget surplus, but please don't let the facts hurt your little teabagger brain.
          1454
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Phlegming Liberal
          What does a budget surplus have to do with what I said party liner dipchit? I'm not a "bagger", or a republican, or anything else you want to call me you moron. I'm an anarchist, IE NO FING STATE CONTROL. Geez, stick your head in a blender.
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Julius
        [blocked]
      brandon
      • 1 Year Ago
      Until they have paid back their loss plus interest on the money that wasn't recouped by selling the stock, they will be government motors. End of story. When that is repaid, which it won't be, they will lose the name "Government Motors."
        VVVVH
        • 1 Year Ago
        @brandon
        Tell your government to be better money managers, not GM. GM did not threaten the government to sell its stakes.
      erie_glass
      • 1 Year Ago
      A $10 billion taxpayer loss is a drop in the bucket compared to what would have happened if GM went belly up. The bailout saved a little town next to mine called Lordstown, OH, where the Chevy Cruze is built. I can't imagine what would have happened to my area and many other places like where I live had GM failed, not to mention the countless suppliers, dealers, detailers, wholesalers, etc.
        ngiotta
        • 1 Year Ago
        @erie_glass
        Businesses fail every day-- lots of them. Almost none of them are saved by the government. While it's likely that GM's closure would have cost many jobs, I'm not sure it's fair to present a hypothetical "town-destroyer" scenario. The last company I worked at was located in a small town and employees made up almost 30% of the local population. It closed almost a year ago and guess what-- almost everyone found another job and the town wasn't wiped off the face of the earth....
      kyler
      • 1 Year Ago
      according to the Center for Automotive Research, the federal government's aid to the domestic auto industry saved 2.6 million jobs yielded $105.3 Billion in taxes (income-federal/state, SocSec and Med, and transfer payments) since 2009 produced $284.4 Billion in wages (to support families, homes, and local economies) since 2009 at a net cost today just over $10 Billion (loss on $50 billion in bailout funds) so in other words would you have given me $50 in 2009, if I gave you back $390 as of today? these are the only facts relevant to the restructuring by the Obama and Bush administrations and the actions they took to save our industry
        brandon
        • 1 Year Ago
        @kyler
        This has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. You ASSume that if GM have been allowed to go into the hands of it's creditors that it would have been broken apart and sold off and all the jobs be lost. THAT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE. At least not to any rational human. Keep thinking that we made 390 billion.
          • 1 Year Ago
          @brandon
          [blocked]
          axiomatik
          • 1 Year Ago
          @brandon
          You seem to forget what state the economy was in in early 2009.
        Eduardo Maal
        • 1 Year Ago
        @kyler
        Wow, that's really impressive. And how about all the money they spent, that came for free right? Also, these analyses assume that the money that went to one part of the economy, would have stood still. Unless the Government and the taxpayers were leaving the money under their mattress, this money was either going to be invested elsewhere, or it would be in banks, who loan it out. Had the whole financial system not been screwed up with easy (counterfit) money, that comes from fractional reserve banking (yes, you bank doesn't have your money in reserve, it loans out most of it. All banks are actually bankrupt. That's why they make people think its about market confidence. It isn't, its just no one wants you to go and get your money out, because they know that the banks don't have it. AKA What Madoff did), the money in the banks represents loanable funds. More money in the banks = more loanable funds = more businesses receiving loans. So, in the end, all they managed was to keep this damaged system going (stopping the banks from going bankrupt). Does that mean that every American will eat 100 bagels in the morning instead of 1? No, it just means that there is an imbalance of money towards the banks, which the loan and make a profit of, at your expense. Either way, the money would have generated the same taxes, wages, etc. Because instead of it being used to prop up a broken company, it would've been used by profitable companies to invest in their business. And the creditors of GM would have decided what to do with it.
          Carpinions
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Eduardo Maal
          @ brandon Not sure what planet your math comes from, but the UAW's $1+ billion is not going to cover hundreds of thousands of workers for more than a month, at best. Perhaps you've forgotten how long it can take to find work in the current economy, even in the field for which you are skilled. Just getting interviewed and hired can take a month. Meanwhile bills roll in, kids need to eat, cars need gas, etc. And as if Honda, Toyota, Nissan, and any others would suddenly have hundreds of thousands of jobs to hand out.
          brandon
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Eduardo Maal
          Car, they wouldn't have been out of a job. Just like they weren't out of a job when the government allowed them to go through bankruptcy months later. Please just stop and think about what you are saying. Also, if, and this is a very huge if, that happened, then the UAW could have propped up those workers until they found something else. After all, the UAW is worth >1 billion, and maybe it's time they start contributing back something to keep themselves alive. Other than donating to political parties for favors like bailouts.
          Carpinions
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Eduardo Maal
          And what of all the hundreds of thousands of just line workers who would have been out of a job? In your scenario above, how do they magically gravitate to all the areas in which that money would have moved to, and gotten a skilled job over the few months of time it would have taken for GM and Chrysler to dissolve as companies (or be broken up, or whatever permutation)? People accuse Bush/Obama of creating a situation that would have had predictably bad results, but have no trouble themselves of casting massive guesses on what would have happened if GM and Chrysler completely failed and what would have transpired afterward. Oh you just know that someone would've picked up the slack. Oh it would have been a few weeks of pain! Nobody rooting for GM's failure could possibly claim to know what would have happened realistically, let alone be able to grab any moral superiority over it. The GM/Chrysler bailout wasn't about propping up failed companies (both of which, even as "failures", were selling millions of cars per year), it was about averting economic catastrophe that would have snowballed. Plain and simple. That was averted. There's no way around that fact, especially now that both companies are no longer in government hands in any way, shape, or form.
          axiomatik
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Eduardo Maal
          Beyond representing current employees, the UAW is also responsible for all pension costs of retired employees. The UAW negotiations in 2006 transferred all pension liabilities off of the automakers and onto the UAW. The reason that the UAW got shares in GM and Chrysler is to help pay for those pension costs, in lieu of the payments GM and Chrysler were *supposed* to make under the 2006 negotiations.
      William
      • 1 Year Ago
      This is nothing more than another lie put to the American people . It was stated less than six months ago the American people would loss 23 Billion on GM . All this is nothing more than obama lying to the American people.
        taucephei
        • 1 Year Ago
        @William
        Hey, you clown. Just a heads-up, it was George Bush who signed the law to bail out the auto industry. And it was probably the best thing he ever did in office!
        knightrider_6
        • 1 Year Ago
        @William
        You do know that $10 billion is a smaller number than $23 billion, don't you? Oh wait, I forgot that teabaggers can only count up to 10
      mawhalen53
      • 1 Year Ago
      For perspective, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost us $1,495,643,306,606 since 2001. That comes out to something like $340 million per day. $10b to save General Motors = 1 month of wars. http://nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/
        brandon
        • 1 Year Ago
        @mawhalen53
        So because they were both equally bad ideas, that means that they were both good? I hate you people and your idiotic logic. How about we end the wars *and* let GM take care of themselves? Oh wait, that would make sense, so our people can't allow that to happen.
          mawhalen53
          • 1 Year Ago
          @brandon
          Numbers provided for perspective, I didn't say anything about whether either was a good idea.
          brandon
          • 1 Year Ago
          @brandon
          Ok, then excuse my attitude. I ASSumed that you were presenting this as evidence that option "a" was a good idea because we waste money on option "b". I'm used to that mentality here from the likes of Zoom, imc, Aaron, etc. So, sorry for lumping you into that category with my assumption.
          ngiotta
          • 1 Year Ago
          @brandon
          If neither was a good idea, why post it at all?
        jebibudala
        • 1 Year Ago
        @mawhalen53
        Obama just renewed our stay in Afghanistan until 2020, how much is that going to cost?
          ngiotta
          • 1 Year Ago
          @jebibudala
          With the way things are going, that'll probably cost less than the ACA website.
      Rochester
      • 1 Year Ago
      Silly Baggers will continue to call it "Government Motors" for years to come... reality, necessity, and facts be damned. They only know what they're spoonfed. Best not to get too worked up about crazy people.
        dj446688
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Rochester
        Fact - it cost the American tax payers $10 billion dollars. Fact - the U.S. automaker that did not take the government handout, Ford Motor Company, is the most solid. Fact - G.M. IS government motors.
          Julius
          • 1 Year Ago
          @dj446688
          I'd be careful as to how you would define "most solid". Ford itself is strong, but Lincoln is weak. The reinvestment in product GM has put in is starting to show rewards - both the CTS and Corvette are media darlings despite some issues (like CUE), and even stodgy Consumer Reports ranked the new Impala as one of the highest-rated cars in recent memory (outscored by the Tesla Model S, 99 to 95 IIRC).
          jtav2002
          • 1 Year Ago
          @dj446688
          Ford could have very well been in the same position had they not had a little more foresight into what was coming and arranged some funding through the government before it was gravely needed and labeled a bail out. Fact. Did it cost tax payers $10b? Sure. But had the company gone under it would have been a much, much worse situation.
          Tom C
          • 1 Year Ago
          @dj446688
          Ford would have been destroyed if GM were allowed to go under. Their CEO supported the bankruptcy program. Look it up.
      ewaynee
      • 1 Year Ago
      Our prez was right to take a gamble on the American worker. He stood out alone on this issue when the GOP insisted that they should go through bankrupcty. Kudoos to the auto industry for the impressive turn around and to our prez for believing in the people!
        scubaeqhp
        • 1 Year Ago
        @ewaynee
        You can thank the prez and the unions for a 10 billion loss. How many meals for the poor would that buy?
          Carpinions
          • 1 Year Ago
          @scubaeqhp
          How much money has the GOP insisted be cut for programs that do just that, jackass?
        greatqb44
        • 1 Year Ago
        @ewaynee
        ya..10 billion loss is a turnaround..you gotta believe!!!
          Tom C
          • 1 Year Ago
          @greatqb44
          The collapse of the US auto industry would have cost between 500,000 and 1 million jobs. Taking the conservative estimate of 500,000, the government saved good jobs at a cost of $20,000 per job, or maybe 6-9 months worth of wages for jobs that will now last indefinitely, generating orders of magnitude more economic benefit and taxable wages than they cost. You call that a bad investment? What planet are you from?
        • 1 Year Ago
        @ewaynee
        [blocked]
        • 1 Year Ago
        @ewaynee
        [blocked]
    • Load More Comments