The final tally on the cost of the US auto industry bailout is in. With the recent sale of shares of Ally Financial, the Feds invested $79.69 billion to keep GM, Chrysler and their financing divisions afloat and recouped $70.43 billion – a net loss of $9.26 billion. However, in the government's official numbers it lost $16.56 billion because the smaller number factored in interest and dividend payments. The total was still far less red ink spilled than some estimates predicted.
The Auditor General of Canada recently issued a report that makes at least one thing clear: it doesn't know how effective Canadian government loans given to General Motors and Chrysler in 2009 were in ensuring the viability of both companies. That year, the Canadian and Ontario governments dished out $10.8 billion CAD ($9.6B US) to GM and $2.9 billion CAD ($2.6B US) to Chrysler, but hadn't yet sorted out precisely how the funds were to be used before disbursing them.
We dig a good political tell-all every once in a while (how else will we get our political fix while waiting for House of Cards' third season?). Today, we get just that from former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's new book, "Stress Test," which details, among other parts of the 2009 financial catastrophe, the structured bankruptcy that allowed Chrysler and General Motors to emerge as competitive players in the auto industry.
According 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.
Almost five years after US taxpayers bailed out General Motors and Chrysler, a large majority of their slimmed-down dealership networks are posting soaring profits, Bloomberg reports, and contributing to the US auto industry on track this year to deliver 15.4 million vehicles, the most since 16.15 million were delivered in 2007.
With the election behind President Obama, there will be pressure coming from different quarters to sell off the 32% of General Motors that the government owns.
A new TV ad produced by the Romney-Ryan campaign, running in Ohio heading into the last week of the Presidential campaign, severely distorts the facts of the auto bailout in the hopes of swaying independent voters.
The saga of the U.S. Treasury's involvement with General Motors has become the theater of call and response: the call is Treasury announcing how much it stands to lose on its bailout of GM, the response is a turgid chorus of "Government Motors!" and "They should have died!" peppered with a few defenders trying to make themselves heard. Well, here we go again, since the latest Treasury report filed states that it stands to lose $25.1 billion on the 500 million shares of GM stock it still owns.
As expected, the so-called auto bailout of 2009 has become a major talking point in the run-up to the 2012 Presidential Election. Somewhat surprisingly, however, both sides of the aisle are taking credit for the success seen by General Motors and Chrysler since the two automakers were pushed through a structured bankruptcy process.
General Motors stock has been languishing for months, failing to climb past $30 per share since July of last year. Trading at around $22 per share today, the optimism that surrounded the company's emergence from bankruptcy and initial public offering in November 2010 has all but vanished. So it's no wonder that the United States Treasury has decided to sit on its GM shares, with no plans to sell of its remaining 26 percent stake in the automaker.
The Detroit News reports presidential hopeful Mitt Romney believes he deserves credit for the auto industry's recovery, despite the fact that he adamantly opposes the bailout. While speaking with a Cleveland, Ohio television station, Romney said he deserves "a lot of credit" because he supported the idea of managed bankruptcy. But both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama believed General Motors and Chrysler couldn't survive the process without backing from the United States Treas
Even as Republican presidential candidates soldier on in their opposition to the auto industry bailout, new polling indicates that the American public has changed its attitude about the $80 billion spent to help both Chrysler and General Motors restructure. According to The New York Times, a poll conducted in February shows the gap between those who approve of the measures and those who remain opposed has shrunk, while a different, more recent poll shows a slim majority of Americans now support
While the headline might seem shocking, given the circumstances of the 2009 global economic meltdown, it only makes sense. Ford's dealings with two of its biggest competitors were centered around mutual self-preservation in the form of trying to keep a beleaguered supplier base afloat, according to The Detroit News. According to the report, Ford, Toyota and Honda cooperated to buy from common suppliers in a bid to keep those parts-makers from going under, which would have threatened the automake
The 2008 economic collapse in the U.S. led to what many experts call the worst recession since the Great Depression. Among the many casualties of the recession was the U.S. auto industry, which (arguably) was saved thanks to $25 billion in cash from the Bush Administration in 2008 and another $60 billion from the Obama Administration in 2009.
2008 was one crazy, almost surreal year. It was the year when the economy took a nosedive, and the U.S. auto industry nearly ceased to exist. One of the last major decisions former President Bush made before he left office was to give Chrysler and General Motors a combined $17.4 billion to keep their doors open.
Former Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli has performed a curt about face on his comments about the Obama Administration's handling of the auto bailout. The Detroit News reports that Nardelli said that he believes the administration made the correct decision for Chrysler in an email to the publication. Nardelli didn't go so far as to deny his earlier statements, but said that he understood why the government chose the path it took in the situation. He continued on to say that Chrysler was very appreciati
The Detroit News reports that former Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli believes that the Obama Administration didn't need to hand the automaker to Fiat in order for the company to continue on. Instead, Nardelli says that a private equity firm could have easily taken the reins and steered the company back toward success. As you may recall, Nardelli left Chrysler in 2009 after the private equity firm Cerberus was forced to loosen its grip on the company. We don't need to elaborate on how well that whole e