Gm pays off debt early....

[minendrews68]

I just got a email from GM thanking me for being a loyal customer and so on. They stated in the email that they had paid off their bail out debt, with interest, early. Really glad to hear it, just wonder how they come up with that much money that quick. They need to share that with us.

Carl

[98ssnova]

Americans buy USA made car's they make money easy enough for me

[justimagine]

I have to believe that much of their debt was written off in the bankruptcy thus greatly increasing their net revenue. It would be interesting to see if the government debt was repaid dollar for dollar or pennies on the dollar? I too, saw the press release and was wondering how this was possible.

[Norwoodx55]

I saw on the news that the loan was paid off with money from a previous government loan that has been sitting in an escrow account. Not such a big achievement.

[GHOSTDANCER]

DETROIT -- General Motors Co. has repaid the $8.1 billion in loans it got from the U.S. and Canadian governments, a move its CEO says is a sign automaker is on the road to recovery.
GM CEO Whitacre formally announced the loan paybacks Wednesday at the company's Fairfax Assembly Plant in Kansas City, Kansas.

GM got a total of $52 billion from the U.S. government and $9.5 billion from the Canadian and Ontario governments as it went through bankruptcy protection last year. The U.S. considered as a loan $6.7 billion of the aid, while the Canadian governments held $1.4 billion in loans.
The U.S. government payments, made Tuesday, came five years ahead of schedule, and Whitacre said they are a sign that the automaker is on its way toward reducing government ownership of the company. The payments on the Canadian loans were also made Tuesday.
GM still owes $45.3 billion to the U.S. and $8.1 billion to Canada, money it received in exchange for large stakes in the company. The U.S. government now owns 61 percent of the company and Canada owns roughly 12 percent. GM plans to repay both with a public stock offering, perhaps later this year.

[Nine Ball]

I've been doing my part to help GM out.

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2010/04/garage04-1.jpg

[Tony_SS]

In other news, I repaid some of my mortgage this month.. I still owe a lot more though!

[vintageracer]

What about paying back the OTHER 45 BILLION dollars the government gave GM so US taxpayers can enjoy and have the privilage of owning 60% of GM stock?

That's what kept GM in business. When, if ever, are they going to pay that back????

[68firebird]

I am envious!!!:twothumbs


I've been doing my part to help GM out.

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2010/04/garage04-1.jpg

[Dons67]

What about paying back the OTHER 45 BILLION dollars the government gave GM so US taxpayers can enjoy and have the privilage of owning 60% of GM stock?

That's what kept GM in business. When, if ever, are they going to pay that back????


Did you read the previously post that contained the press release courtesy of GHOSTDANCER????

DETROIT -- General Motors Co. has repaid the $8.1 billion in loans it got from the U.S. and Canadian governments, a move its CEO says is a sign automaker is on the road to recovery.
GM CEO Whitacre formally announced the loan paybacks Wednesday at the company's Fairfax Assembly Plant in Kansas City, Kansas.

GM got a total of $52 billion from the U.S. government and $9.5 billion from the Canadian and Ontario governments as it went through bankruptcy protection last year. The U.S. considered as a loan $6.7 billion of the aid, while the Canadian governments held $1.4 billion in loans.
The U.S. government payments, made Tuesday, came five years ahead of schedule, and Whitacre said they are a sign that the automaker is on its way toward reducing government ownership of the company. The payments on the Canadian loans were also made Tuesday.
GM still owes $45.3 billion to the U.S. and $8.1 billion to Canada, money it received in exchange for large stakes in the company. The U.S. government now owns 61 percent of the company and Canada owns roughly 12 percent. GM plans to repay both with a public stock offering, perhaps later this year.
I work for a local GM Dealership and GM has made a lot of changes in the way they conduct business, it may not seam like a big deal but GM has made a lot of little changes like making dealerships order there sales brochures once a year instead of having a constant supply that adds up not to mention the big changes such as reducing the number of dealerships resulting in a lower cost of business. From what I've seen there is no more "fat cat" attitude towards expenditures and there are a lot more solid business decisions being made on a daily basis.

I'm proud to be a part of it, it seams like everyone is quick to forget what the big 3 auto groups did shortly after 911 with offering 0% financing and going overboard to help keep America stimulated and the economy going. Sure there have been mistakes, can anyone raise their hand and say they've never made one?? The important thing is that it seams that GM has learned from those mistakes and is going in a great direction, really pay off a debt early, i would imagine there aren't too many of us that do that on a regular basis.


Sorry about the rant - sometimes it happens!!:banghead:

[JayBird]

I'm happy to see them paying off debt. Still way more to go.

I'm waiting for the day it will once again be General "Public" Motors instead of Goverment Motors.

[John Wright]

I've been doing my part to help GM out.

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2010/04/garage04-1.jpg


NICE!:smoke:

[vintageracer]

Did you read the previously post that contained the press release courtesy of GHOSTDANCER????

DETROIT -- General Motors Co. has repaid the $8.1 billion in loans it got from the U.S. and Canadian governments, a move its CEO says is a sign automaker is on the road to recovery.
GM CEO Whitacre formally announced the loan paybacks Wednesday at the company's Fairfax Assembly Plant in Kansas City, Kansas.

GM got a total of $52 billion from the U.S. government and $9.5 billion from the Canadian and Ontario governments as it went through bankruptcy protection last year. The U.S. considered as a loan $6.7 billion of the aid, while the Canadian governments held $1.4 billion in loans.
The U.S. government payments, made Tuesday, came five years ahead of schedule, and Whitacre said they are a sign that the automaker is on its way toward reducing government ownership of the company. The payments on the Canadian loans were also made Tuesday.
GM still owes $45.3 billion to the U.S. and $8.1 billion to Canada, money it received in exchange for large stakes in the company. The U.S. government now owns 61 percent of the company and Canada owns roughly 12 percent. GM plans to repay both with a public stock offering, perhaps later this year.
I work for a local GM Dealership and GM has made a lot of changes in the way they conduct business, it may not seam like a big deal but GM has made a lot of little changes like making dealerships order there sales brochures once a year instead of having a constant supply that adds up not to mention the big changes such as reducing the number of dealerships resulting in a lower cost of business. From what I've seen there is no more "fat cat" attitude towards expenditures and there are a lot more solid business decisions being made on a daily basis.

I'm proud to be a part of it, it seams like everyone is quick to forget what the big 3 auto groups did shortly after 911 with offering 0% financing and going overboard to help keep America stimulated and the economy going. Sure there have been mistakes, can anyone raise their hand and say they've never made one?? The important thing is that it seams that GM has learned from those mistakes and is going in a great direction, really pay off a debt early, i would imagine there aren't too many of us that do that on a regular basis.


Sorry about the rant - sometimes it happens!!:banghead:


I read that and that's all fine and dandy but the question still remains:

When are US and Canadian taxpayers going to get their money back that should not have been given to GM in the first place?

[parsonsj]

it seams like everyone is quick to forget what the big 3 auto groups did shortly after 911 with offering 0% financing and going overboard to help keep America stimulated and the economy going. I buy GM vehicles too, and plan to continue. I don't have Tony's collection, but I'm working on it. :)

But: I ain't buying the idea that GM (and others) offered 0% financing in an altruistic fashion. NO WAY. GM did that for its own reasons, not as some sort of sacrifice for the American public.

jp

[jon72vega]

Smoke & mirrors.
What about the other 45 billion or so that they got from the US government?

[John Wright]

But: I ain't buying the idea that GM (and others) offered 0% financing in an altruistic fashion. NO WAY. GM did that for its own reasons, not as some sort of sacrifice for the American public.

jp
I agree....I took advantage of the 0% on my truck. At the time I was looking for used vehicles, and then realized that for less monthly payment and a shorter loan, I could have a new car warranty and a new vehicle. We both had agood deal....They sold a vehicle and I got a newer one than I had planned on and saved some money at the same time.

[moreHP]

I read that and that's all fine and dandy but the question still remains:

When are US and Canadian taxpayers going to get their money back that should not have been given to GM in the first place?

When the stock goes public again and that money will pay back the shares the government owns.

[GHOSTDANCER]

A top Senate Republican on Thursday accused the Obama administration of misleading taxpayers about General Motors' loan repayment, saying the struggling auto giant was only able to repay its bailout money by dipping into a separate pot of bailout money.
Sen. Chuck Grassley's charge was backed up by the inspector general for the bailout -- also known as the Trouble asset Relief Program, or TARP. Watchdog Neil Barofsky told Fox News, as well as the Senate Finance Committee, that General Motors used bailout money to pay back the federal government.
"It appears to be nothing more than an elaborate TARP money shuffle," Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a letter Thursday to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
GM announced Wednesday that it had paid back the $8.1 billion in loans it received from the U.S. and Canadian governments. Of that, $6.7 billion went to the U.S. treasury.
But Grassley said in his letter that a Securities and Exchange Commission form filed by GM showed that $6.7 billion of the tens of billions the company received was sitting in an escrow account and available to be used for repayment. He called on Geithner to provide more information about why the company was allowed to use bailout money to repay bailout money, and how much of the remaining escrow money GM would be allowed to keep. "The bottom line seems to be that the TARP loans were 'repaid' with other TARP funds in a Treasury escrow account. The TARP loans were not repaid from money GM is earning selling cars, as GM and the administration have claimed in their speeches, press releases and television commercials," he wrote. :enguard:

[vintageracer]

When the stock goes public again and that money will pay back the shares the government owns.


Two Questions for you:

1. Will this "Public Stock Offering" occur during any of our lifetimes?

2. If a public stock offering does occur during our lifetime GM will need to raise over $52 BILLION dollars from this or the many additional "Public Stock Offerings" to pay off the taxpayers of the US and Canada. The ONLY way that GM could possibly raise that kind of capital with "Public Stock Offerings" is through the STRONG participation and stock purchases by Institutional Investors, Pension funds, Stock funds, Hedge funds and individual investors. The individual investors would only provide chump change.

Given the screwing all of the above AND the GM partners as they are called (their suppliers) took less than 1 year ago during the GM bankruptcy why would you think ANY of those investors would have ANY condidence in GM management and UAW to profitably run the company AND provide ANY type of positive return on investment capital by purchasing GM Stock?

I let each of you TRY answer these 2 questions in your own mind!

[DJW32]

I've been doing my part to help GM out.

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2010/04/garage04-1.jpg

Wow, Tony kept a car longer than a few months...Very nice. What's up with your other builds?

[MarkM66]

I buy GM vehicles too, and plan to continue. I don't have Tony's collection, but I'm working on it. :)

But: I ain't buying the idea that GM (and others) offered 0% financing in an altruistic fashion. NO WAY. GM did that for its own reasons, not as some sort of sacrifice for the American public.

jp

No doubt that's true, since they have offered that many times since.

[Twentyover]

Chrysler turned a $147 million profit 1st Q 2010. Fiat has decided to spin off it's industrial division so Fiat and Chrysler can make decisions optimized for it's autoimotive products without respect to industrial products. What this means is, if Chrysler fails, Fiat fails. So unlike Diamler, who did their best to strip value fron Chrysler, Fiat is depending on Chrysler for their own survival.

And no, we still owe the Feds money.

[andrewb70]

Governments do not have money that is their own to give. They obtain money in one of three ways; taxation, borrowing, or inflating the money supply (printing). All of these methods have implications for the citizens of this country. Just so we are clear.

Andrew

[Tony_SS]

And their printing of the money that leads to inflation is ultimately just a massive invisible tax since it drops the value of the dollar.

[wmhjr]

Chrysler turned a $147 million profit 1st Q 2010. Fiat has decided to spin off it's industrial division so Fiat and Chrysler can make decisions optimized for it's autoimotive products without respect to industrial products. What this means is, if Chrysler fails, Fiat fails. So unlike Diamler, who did their best to strip value fron Chrysler, Fiat is depending on Chrysler for their own survival.

And no, we still owe the Feds money.

Sorry, but your statement is a little misleading. Chrysler was in horrible shape (far worse than anticipated) at the time of the Daimler purchase. Daimler spent far more on Chrysler than they ever took out of it. It cost the Daimler CEO his job, and it cost MB several years of distraction and reduced quality, as they essentially stripped MB (Not Chrysler) in order to FUND Chrysler. On the surface, at the time of the purchase Chrysler seemed to be OK, however deeper looks at their financials and impending loss of market share doomed them. I know there are many who like to disagree with this, however there is far more information to be discussed than a simple claim that Daimler milked Chrysler.

[wmhjr]

Ghostdancer is completely correct here. GM deserves zero praise for "repaying" the loan, when all they did was repay the loan with MORE public money and not a penny from their own. In fact, I see this is massivly deceptive, and deserving of scorn and criticism as opposed to thanks. I'm not saying GM is not producing good product or anything of the like. Simply that this claim that GM has "repaid early" is at its core, a lie.

[LS6 Tommy]

I just got a email from GM thanking me for being a loyal customer and so on. They stated in the email that they had paid off their bail out debt, with interest, early. Really glad to hear it, just wonder how they come up with that much money that quick. They need to share that with us.

Carl

They used TARP money to pay off the bailout loan... They didn't actually "pay off" anything. They borrowed from Peter to pay Peter...

Tommy

[LS6 Tommy]

Sorry, but your statement is a little misleading. Chrysler was in horrible shape (far worse than anticipated) at the time of the Daimler purchase. Daimler spent far more on Chrysler than they ever took out of it. It cost the Daimler CEO his job, and it cost MB several years of distraction and reduced quality, as they essentially stripped MB (Not Chrysler) in order to FUND Chrysler. On the surface, at the time of the purchase Chrysler seemed to be OK, however deeper looks at their financials and impending loss of market share doomed them. I know there are many who like to disagree with this, however there is far more information to be discussed than a simple claim that Daimler milked Chrysler.

If the continuing fall of Chrysler wasn't Daimler's fault, please explain how they went from having the LOWEST cost per unit in the "Big 3" to the HIGHEST after Daimler took over???

Tommy

[wmhjr]

If the continuing fall of Chrysler wasn't Daimler's fault, please explain how they went from having the LOWEST cost per unit in the "Big 3" to the HIGHEST after Daimler took over???

Tommy

Tommy, that's an easy one. But it's also only part of the discussion. Take a look at what made up those costs. I'll give you a hint. That cost was based in the US. You might want to take a look at the labor negotiations..... You might also want to look at public filings for Daimler in 2003-2004 where it was patently obvious that Daimler was dumping money into Chrysler. There are books on this specific topic. And to be perfectly honest, one of those books is critical of Daimler.

[LS6 Tommy]

Tommy, that's an easy one. But it's also only part of the discussion. Take a look at what made up those costs. I'll give you a hint. That cost was based in the US. You might want to take a look at the labor negotiations..... You might also want to look at public filings for Daimler in 2003-2004 where it was patently obvious that Daimler was dumping money into Chrysler. There are books on this specific topic. And to be perfectly honest, one of those books is critical of Daimler.


Works for me. I didn't really think of the labor stuff. :hammer:I was solely looking at the increase of unit cost as compared to the lack of improvement in the product (or maybe continued decrease would be better?). You have a very good point that I obviously looked right over.

Tommy

[wmhjr]

Works for me. I didn't really think of the labor stuff. :hammer:I was solely looking at the increase of unit cost as compared to the lack of improvement in the product (or maybe continued decrease would be better?). You have a very good point that I obviously looked right over.

Tommy

It's an interesting discussion. I was disappointed in both Chrysler and Daimler - especially since I owned products from both of them. I think there was plenty of blame to go around. It's just more complicated than supporters of either side often like to admit.

[Twentyover]

Sorry, but your statement is a little misleading. Chrysler was in horrible shape (far worse than anticipated) at the time of the Daimler purchase. Daimler spent far more on Chrysler than they ever took out of it. It cost the Daimler CEO his job, and it cost MB several years of distraction and reduced quality, as they essentially stripped MB (Not Chrysler) in order to FUND Chrysler. On the surface, at the time of the purchase Chrysler seemed to be OK, however deeper looks at their financials and impending loss of market share doomed them. I know there are many who like to disagree with this, however there is far more information to be discussed than a simple claim that Daimler milked Chrysler.


I'll agree and disagree. Partisans on both sides rarely have an unbiased opinion, and those who are not involved rarely have adequate factual information. They certainly are't going to get it from the media.

Eaton turned Chrysler froma profitable company to an unprofitabale one, then sold it to cover his incompetence. I'll refer those interested to http://www.allpar.com/ed/2006/purge.html. The opinion of one guy on the inside who was there while it happened. Reflects the stories I hear from co-workers who were there during that time. Most seem to center on accounting tricks used to strip Chrysler of assets and having them wind up on Diamler's books.

Addressing your response to LS6 Tommy, yeah, the UAW are probably overpaid for what they do, but every discussion here about the failure of GM and Chrysler eventually seems to end up that it's the UAW's fault. Maybe, maybe not.

As far as Schrempp, perhaps he should have been forced out of Diamler after the Fokker deal.


All that said, the reality is that Chrysler made money Q1 2010

[wmhjr]

I'll agree and disagree. Partisans on both sides rarely have an unbiased opinion, and those who are not involved rarely have adequate factual information. They certainly are't going to get it from the media.

Eaton turned Chrysler froma profitable company to an unprofitabale one, then sold it to cover his incompetence. I'll refer those interested to http://www.allpar.com/ed/2006/purge.html. The opinion of one guy on the inside who was there while it happened. Reflects the stories I hear from co-workers who were there during that time. Most seem to center on accounting tricks used to strip Chrysler of assets and having them wind up on Diamler's books.

Addressing your response to LS6 Tommy, yeah, the UAW are probably overpaid for what they do, but every discussion here about the failure of GM and Chrysler eventually seems to end up that it's the UAW's fault. Maybe, maybe not.

As far as Schrempp, perhaps he should have been forced out of Diamler after the Fokker deal.

All that said, the reality is that Chrysler made money Q1 2010

You're right - we'll both agree and disagree. Personally, I tend to put less confidence on information coming from inside a corporation, as there are clear lines of bias and disinformation. It's data which needs to be considered along with its source. So, in my opinion those with insider knowledge rarely have FULL accurate information. Especially in situations like Chrysler, everyone has an axe to grind.

Looking at quarterly reports, cash flow, balance sheets - and quality - tells a clear story. So do defect rates, product lines, sales, market penetration and lots of other things. I would again state that there is more than enough blame to go around. I simply cannot agree that Daimler effectively milked Chrysler - it seems to me (and frankly the industry) that it was the other way around. Schrempp was a fool who bought a business without adequate due diligence, and was rewarded with a black hole that stole resources from the core MB business.

Labor is a huge cost, and the obligations of pensions, health care and specialized wages especially following UAW negotiations drove costs up. Remember the LONG negotiations in 1997 and the strike, with the axle plant walking out......

It's not ONLY the union/labor to blame. But they do own a measurable chunk of that blame.

But back to the thread at hand - I continue to maintain that there are no "congratualtions" to be handed out concerning GM paying off some of their bail-out - with another bail-out. Not a penny from their own coffers. Every penny from yours and mine.

[wicked68]

unions have pushed the envelope too hard and negotiated themselves out of jobs. Plain and simple. There are a lot of cars being built in the US - just being built by a different group of americans now - the jobs moved south for the most part to cheaper non union labor.

If it gets out of hand there after an economic cycle it will move somewhere else. Its a global market place and the jobs will go where they can be performed for the best price / output equation.

plain and simple.

This is also the reason we get all these "affordable goods" that we like to buy at walmart. We all complain about things being to expensive when we buy yet we think we are not paid enough for what we produce. Its comical.

Read Michael Porter's competitive advantage of nations

[minendrews68]

And now, just last night, GM CEO comes on TV saying that GM had paid off "all" their debt, plus interest, and, early. Who knows

Carl

[wmhjr]

And now, just last night, GM CEO comes on TV saying that GM had paid off "all" their debt, plus interest, and, early. Who knows

Carl

Saw that, and "I know". He's frankly lying. From a purely technical perspective, he's distorting the truth deliberately with the intent to deceive. From a bottom line perspective, he's a friggin liar.

[ho428]

Only when they bring back Pontiac will I ever buy another GM car.

[vintageracer]

Saw that, and "I know". He's frankly lying. From a purely technical perspective, he's distorting the truth deliberately with the intent to deceive. From a bottom line perspective, he's a friggin liar.


The real question we should ALL ask ourselves is:

Who want's to do business with LIAR?

[wmhjr]

The real question we should ALL ask ourselves is:

Who want's to do business with LIAR?

You got it. I have to say - I've really been pulling for GM and was happy to see some positive product things. I even bought my son a 2009 Cobalt some months ago. However, this blatent propaganda has completely soured me again. When they so obviously distort reality like this it finally convinced me that I can never, ever trust anything they say. Putting on this prime time commercial and lying to our faces is just over the top to the point that it cannot be excused.

[Jim Nilsen]

You got it. I have to say - I've really been pulling for GM and was happy to see some positive product things. I even bought my son a 2009 Cobalt some months ago. However, this blatent propaganda has completely soured me again. When they so obviously distort reality like this it finally convinced me that I can never, ever trust anything they say. Putting on this prime time commercial and lying to our faces is just over the top to the point that it cannot be excused.

The sad truth keeps looking to be that the people on top are in it together with ther government to detroy the auto worker and they are doing all they can to cover it up. I have always wondered why they would do some business practices and the stock holders would not stop it? There is a lot of shady things going on to make us believe they care and then they lie blatantly spending a few million to do it.

The auto industry will never be the same and the new way is even worse than the old way. The banks have taught them how to steal from Peter to pay Paul and it is too bad the American people are not seeing it for what it is.