Apparently, the cost of the US Treasury's bailout of General Motors is still being calculated. A new report from the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which oversees the TARP initiative, found that the US government has lost more money on its investment than previously believed.

The report shows that the Treasury actually lost about $11.2 billion in selling the automaker's stock, up from the roughly $10.3 billion that was previously estimated. Auditors found that the department wrote off an "administrative claim" tied to the bailout worth $826 million, which increased the cost, according to The Detroit Free Press.

At one point, the US Treasury owned 60.8 percent of GM stock, or about 912 million shares. It slowly sold the stake over the course of years, and GM even bought some of the shares back. The government finally divested itself of all of GM in December 2013. Towards the end of the sale, the Treasury predicted it would lose about $9.7 billion on the $49.5 billion investment, but apparently that estimate has proven to be optimistic.


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
  • 57 Comments
      Timothy Tibbetts
      • 1 Year Ago
      Can't wait to see the loss on free health care.
        knightrider_6
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Timothy Tibbetts
        Can't wait to see WMDs
          Phil
          • 1 Year Ago
          @knightrider_6
          There is one sitting in the oval office.
        Matt
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Timothy Tibbetts
        We don't have free health care in the U.S. Congress recently passed a law making health insurance act like car insurance (you have to be insured, or pay an uninsured fee). It seems like the auto insurance system works OK, so I don't see how anyone has a problem making our health insurance system act the same way.
          Chris
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Matt
          You're missing my point there knightrider. You have to purchase it or pay a fine, like I said one can avoid paying for car insurance by choosing not to drive. I guess they didn't tell you that on Comedy Central or PMSNBC.
          knightrider_6
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Matt
          @ Timothy Tibbetts The law is called Affordable Care Act, not Free Care Act Please learn English before you be come to this country
          Essende
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Matt
          Hey Matt, well I have a problem, because of the so called Affordable Care Act, me, being middle class and not able to qualify for any subsidies, will have to pay a lot more for a lot less.
          Chris
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Matt
          Yeah knightrider, it's called the "Affordable Care Act", but it doesn't even succeed at that as most of us are now having to pay more for health insurance. Affordable my foot... What I want to know is how much is the Obama administration paying you to shill for them?
          Chris
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Matt
          Yeah, with the one glaring difference being that one can avoid having to pay for car insurance by choosing not to drive and own a car. With health insurance, according to that so called "affordable" care act, every living breathing individual must have it. With that said, let's just call it what it really is, a tax. That's what the people who pushed it through congress called it.
          brandon
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Matt
          Really? You *think* the auto insurance industry works ok? I guess you never noticed that nice little rider called "uninsured motorist coverage". It's actually quite common due to the expense of insurance. Not to mention, why should I have to pay for insurance just to buy a car? I want the car, not insurance.
          knightrider_6
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Matt
          @Essende "will have to pay a lot more for a lot less." Still waiting to see a verifiable ACA horror story. All the ads GOP and Koch brothers made have been proven false and misleading.
          brandon
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Matt
          Oh, and despite what you think I know about ins, an employer requiring full coverage insurance is not remotely the same as the government *forcing* you into insurance. An employer requiring insurance under the *terms of your employment*, an agreed upon contract, is completely different than *GOVERNMENT COERCION*. Jesus, the fact that I have to break this down seriously shows the education that this country lacks.
        jase.s
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Timothy Tibbetts
        Maybe if the GOP went along with a single payer system when Dems proposed it all throughout the 80's and 90's, we wouldn't have had to settle on this broken system. And the fact that this is the ***ONLY*** system the GOP wanted to approve should tell you something about they really care about.
      joe shmoe
      • 1 Year Ago
      Typical US govt. Never makes money on anything. Wastes our tax dollars and loses money. If you ever want to run your company into the ground, ask the govt to help you.
        lne937s
        • 1 Year Ago
        @joe shmoe
        Actually, the US government made a net profit on the TARP bailouts due to the banking portion (likely to increase when all is said and done). While the auto portion lost money, we came out ahead overall. http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2013/12/18/even-losing-10b-on-gm-bailout-taxpayers-see-tarp-profit.htm
          rlog100
          • 1 Year Ago
          @lne937s
          Actually considering much of the bank TARP money came from other government money like FDIC money and other shell games, the TARP so called payback is misleading. What is also incredibly misleading about TARP is that a ton of money was pumped into investment firms by other methods. One-offs by Congress directly to some banks and PR Laundering of bailout money given through AIG are just a few. These were on the same magnitude as TARP or more. Then about 5 trillion dollars of the Quantitative Easing by the Fed goes where? Wallstreet and since Wallstreet makes money on moving money around, investment firms get a percentage of the financial activity that QE genrates. Not to mention QE itself exists to allow people to invest without risking their own money. Which means next time if it goes down the taxpayer is left with the bill automatically.
        knightrider_6
        • 1 Year Ago
        @joe shmoe
        Typical right wing nutjob. Never knows facts or how the economy works.
      AngeloD
      • 1 Year Ago
      Still waiting for someone to show where in the constitution the government is granted authority for a bailout of a private company using taxpayer money.
        Julius
        • 1 Year Ago
        @AngeloD
        Article 1, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" This was not a new tactic. Amtrak was formed the same way (taxpayer-funded ownership of sections of private companies).
          brandon
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Julius
          That wasn't for the general welfare. I wish you people would stop trying to fit that to mean whatever you want it to. Also, what does the general welfare clause have to do with few thousand crappy UAW workers? That doesn't *help everyone*. That helps the union/GM, and only the union/GM.
      kajohns1964
      • 1 Year Ago
      It wasn't a GM bailout it was an UAW bailout.
        knightrider_6
        • 1 Year Ago
        @kajohns1964
        Exactly! The point of GM and Chrysler bailout was to save blue collar jobs, not to line pockets of rich CEOs with multimillion dollar golden parachutes. +1
          knightrider_6
          • 1 Year Ago
          @knightrider_6
          @Hooman "Those blue collar jobs would have been saved by the new owners of GM" Yeah, just ask Saab workers how it worked out for them! /s
          Hooman
          • 1 Year Ago
          @knightrider_6
          Good point but I have to disagree. Those "blue collar" jobs would have been saved by the new owners of GM. If GM had declared bankruptcy it would have been sold off and made more efficient. The new owners would have restructured GM to be more efficient. There would have been a private buyer for GM in a matter of days. Its too valuable a company to let slip away by private investors. That's how a free market works. If a commercial entity is inefficient it goes bankrupt. New buyers improve the entity and hopefully make profits.
      Marlboro
      • 1 Year Ago
      So after bailing out this failure, we find they were covering up known defects. Today we learn of even MORE coverups going back many years. http://www.autonews.com/article/20140429/OEM11/140429850/gm-was-reluctant-to-recall-1-2-million-vehicles-for-airbag-issue
        knightrider_6
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Marlboro
        Typical corporate greed. Same greed that caused the recession in first place. What's astonishing is that not a single bank CEO has gone to jail over this.
          Sanchez
          • 1 Year Ago
          @knightrider_6
          Start with the Federal Reserve...that's the real culprit here. Free, easy money (encouraged after the last bubble they created - that known as "dot com") was ready to fuel mal-investment, while Congress encouraged cheap loans to unqualified home buyers. It was a perfect storm. If we had a currency tied to a real-world asset, this could not happen. Notably, the solution, from the Federal Reserve, has been to create more free, easy money. Student loans are looking awfully bubbly now, no?
      chad_nick
      • 1 Year Ago
      Buy american, buy trash. With the exception of Ford
      D210
      • 1 Year Ago
      Corporate welfare
      m_2012
      • 1 Year Ago
      I wonder how much the 2014 bailout will end up costing? Likely a lot more since now there are deaths and cover ups involved. How many millionaires were created by the bailout?
      scott3
      • 1 Year Ago
      Well it was cheaper and saved more long term jobs then the so called Stimulus Package.
      CarCrazy24
      • 1 Year Ago
      How can we possibly be surprised by government overspending at this point, especially with the last two administrations?
      Matt
      • 1 Year Ago
      So for less than $50 per taxpayer, we assured that one of the last two major American-owned automakers wasn't acquired by a foreign entity. Seems like a great bargain to me, compared with the $20,000 bill per taxpayer for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which haven't any tangible benefit to the American public.
        knightrider_6
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Matt
        "which haven't any tangible benefit to the American public." What are you talking about? Haliburton made billions on those no bid contracts. Just ask Dick Cheney!
        brandon
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Matt
        It's not one of the other. We have nothing tangible from the GM continuing to live. Also, what does it matter if they are owned by a foreign entity? Are you really that xenophobic? May the best survive in business, clearly that wasn't GM or they wouldn't have needed money. I hate with a-holes like you do this comparative BS. We shouldn't be in war no more than we should have bailed out GM. NEITHER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE. That doesn't inherently make your argument logical just because you thought one was wrong, so regardless of the right or wrong in your scenario you still say it is ok. That would be like telling your kid, oh you had your lunch money stolen, just steal another kids tomorrow. No, two wrongs don't make a right.
      WHO
      • 1 Year Ago
      Poor "community organizer" is in way over his head.
    • Load More Comments