This belongs in Auto Industry News, not Mopar News.
Sadly, only a few handful, mostly from this board, know better. Most lump Chrysler in with GM, because both took the money and most erroneously believe that GM has paid back ALL it owes.dfarc said:It’s also a point of pride for the people of Chrysler Group and their fans and supporters.
I get the technicality, but most folks can see right through the "we paid it back sham", especially when the very next sentence contains, "taxpayers will lose"... Therefore, GM technically did not pay back the loans, legal is not the same as justice.TexasBill said:GM legally has paid back all it owes, or will have repaid it once the Treasury exits its GM stock position. It was able to do this by persuading Congress to accept stock instead of cash and investing a small portion of the money it received in an initial public offering. At this time, no one knows how much the taxpayers will lose, but it's almost certain to be in the billions of dollars. Combine this with the sham "repayment" in which GM used money it had squirreled away from the TARP funds to make a highly publicized payment on the loans and Dan Akerson standing up at the Detroit Auto Show and saying there was no new product because there was no money and one comes to the conclusion there are people with real brass balls in the Renaissance Center to have the nerve to complain about pay at all.
I've read something in the neighborhood of $13 billion. I believe Chrysler's bailout was profitable.TexasBill said:GM legally has paid back all it owes, or will have repaid it once the Treasury exits its GM stock position. It was able to do this by persuading Congress to accept stock instead of cash and investing a small portion of the money it received in an initial public offering. At this time, no one knows how much the taxpayers will lose
Chrysler's bailout was not profitable. The gov't still lost money on the Chrysler bailout just nowhere near the degree they will on GM once the totals are tallied.I've read something in the neighborhood of $13 billion. I believe Chrysler's bailout was profitable.
This is Allpar. We deal in FACTS, even if they are uncomfortable.JRS200x said:
Depending on the party in power, the VEBA may still be "bailed out" by taxpayers......as has been done for many other retirement plans.MoparNorm said:Exactly.
If you count GM's IPO price, the government lost about 35 cents on the dollar, for those shares. If you count the current GM stock price, the government lost about 50 cents on the dollar.
However if you include the cost for taxpayers to control the entire VEBA, the gov. May have saved billions, as long as the VEBA survives and the gov. Doesn't have to move in and take it over after all of the other money was spent in an attempt to keep the VEBA afloat.
That is still an unknown question as the UAW is having some serious issues trying to keep the unfunded liability under control, with higher expenses and lower income.
The bankruptcy for GM, may turn out to have been a temporary measure as little was done to change the fundamentals issues, addressing cost vs. the number of workers paying in.
If Chrysler hadnt refinanced the loans and carried them full term the US gubmnt would have made money on Chrysler!JRS200x said:
Yes, because the interest rates were set at outrageously high rates......similar to those that DC politicians criticize banks for charging!Jeepnut said:If Chrysler hadnt refinanced the loans and carried them full term the US gubmnt would have made money on Chrysler!
Not to mention the retirement and health care costs the government would have had to assume.Muther said:In terms of lost revenue and payouts, and damage to the economy, both bailouts were enormously successful. Had the bailouts NOT occured, and the government held its cash, the damage to the economy, and to tax revenue would have been immidiate, and very severe. Long term damage to the economy is harder to estimate, but all the experts agree it would be enormous.
The bailouts were (in way) like a drug dealers lending money to their users, so their users could keep buying drugs. In order to reap future tax money associated with the auto industry, the government had to make sure that the auto industry still existed. Even if the money wasn't paid back, it still would have been profitable for the government. I realize that very few people see things this way, but that doesn't change facts. That is why the industry was bailed out. To keep the government from having to pay hundreds of billions in short term money to out of work workers, and to be able to collect tens of trillions of dollars of future tax money. Yes, most of theose workers would have, eventually, found other jobs, and would have paid taxes on those incomes, but the lost revenue of a failed auto industry abolutely makes the bailouts appear microscopic by comparison.