GM "Repays" Gov Loan 5 Years Ahead of Schedule
04-28-2010, 08:33 PM
#81
Damn dude...we've been over this already. Maybe I just need to explain it in newbie terms:
When the government created the "New GM", the money in the working capital account became part of the company. So GM has used that money to pay back it's loans. Sure it's money that was given to them...EVERYTHING THEY HAVE WAS GIVEN TO THEM. However, it is not, as Grassley would love you to think, TARP money. It WAS TARP money before the bankruptcy...with the restructuring it became GM's money. Yes it's all clever government money games, but that's reality. If you have a problem with this, you can protest by NOT BUYING a GM vehicle...even better, stop posting on this GM FORUM.
It really is that simple.
No matter how you spin this, it's good news. It's a reduction of the debt owed by GM. You can look at it as them paying off a bad debt with a not-as-bad debt, you can look at it as them giving back some of the money given to them. Sure it's far from the "complete squaring" that GM and the government would lead you to believe, but it's good news nonetheless. Right now, as far as the government is concerned, GM is paid up. They are not free by any means...the government still has the majority stake, but their loans, in the eyes of their lender, are paid up.
When the government created the "New GM", the money in the working capital account became part of the company. So GM has used that money to pay back it's loans. Sure it's money that was given to them...EVERYTHING THEY HAVE WAS GIVEN TO THEM. However, it is not, as Grassley would love you to think, TARP money. It WAS TARP money before the bankruptcy...with the restructuring it became GM's money. Yes it's all clever government money games, but that's reality. If you have a problem with this, you can protest by NOT BUYING a GM vehicle...even better, stop posting on this GM FORUM.
It really is that simple.
No matter how you spin this, it's good news. It's a reduction of the debt owed by GM. You can look at it as them paying off a bad debt with a not-as-bad debt, you can look at it as them giving back some of the money given to them. Sure it's far from the "complete squaring" that GM and the government would lead you to believe, but it's good news nonetheless. Right now, as far as the government is concerned, GM is paid up. They are not free by any means...the government still has the majority stake, but their loans, in the eyes of their lender, are paid up.
04-28-2010, 09:59 PM
#82
Restricted User
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fleetwood, PA
Posts: 1,398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is clear that you are not a lawyer.
Last edited by Blakbird24; 04-29-2010 at 11:11 AM.
04-29-2010, 03:05 AM
#83
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Here and sometimes there too.
Posts: 13,845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah I know, it's rare we see eye to eye on much but at least on this we can agree.
This money was given to GM during their bankruptcy to stop the bleeding so that they could keep their head above water. In essence it was THEIR money. Well it turns out GM was able to stem the tide a little better than the TARP accountants predicted because they had lots of billions left over, so they used some of those billions to pay off some of the bigger loans that they had to repay. That's how I see it at least.
This money was given to GM during their bankruptcy to stop the bleeding so that they could keep their head above water. In essence it was THEIR money. Well it turns out GM was able to stem the tide a little better than the TARP accountants predicted because they had lots of billions left over, so they used some of those billions to pay off some of the bigger loans that they had to repay. That's how I see it at least.
04-29-2010, 01:41 PM
#84
TECH Fanatic
No matter how you look at it.... I don't think that GM making a commercial and stating the loan had been repaid in such a short period was a good idea. Simply makes one go 
Especially when one considers there is another $43 Billion that GM doesn't have any obligation to re-pay.
Especially when one considers there is another $43 Billion that GM doesn't have any obligation to re-pay.
04-29-2010, 03:48 PM
#87
I'm guessing that GM is under no obligation to repay all of the funds that were "loaned" to them, which was the original deal. If they have to repay it all, you're wrong. If they only had to pay back the $6B, then I'll concede your point. Regardless, the add they are running is in horrible taste, and makes me want to throw random objects at my TV. That is the equivalent of me taking your car and selling it, then bragging to you that I've repaid my credit card debt sooner than projected.
I completely agree with this.
04-29-2010, 06:22 PM
#88
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting read, interpret what you want from it. I read that GM paid the loan with their money. It may have been taxpayer money at one time, but after the paperwork was signed, it's GM"s to use as they see fit.
The last line of the article frightens me since it is made clear that Issa thinks he and the rest of Washington should have a say in what GM does. I'm sorry, winning electoral votes doesn't qualify anyone for anything beyond public speaking. And we all know how far a communication's degree will get you.
http://www.detnews.com/article/20100...loan-repayment
The last line of the article frightens me since it is made clear that Issa thinks he and the rest of Washington should have a say in what GM does. I'm sorry, winning electoral votes doesn't qualify anyone for anything beyond public speaking. And we all know how far a communication's degree will get you.
http://www.detnews.com/article/20100...loan-repayment
04-29-2010, 06:28 PM
#89
Launching!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would say when Washington owns 61% of a company they probably would have some say it what happens.
I mean they replaced the board of directors pretty much to start with.
I seriously doubt they micro-manage GM. But I am sure they have some hardcore influence right now. They at least have the people they picked running the show.
And yes GM took money that was given to them in exchange for equity to pay down the loan. They are good on the loan part from the government.
I mean they replaced the board of directors pretty much to start with.
I seriously doubt they micro-manage GM. But I am sure they have some hardcore influence right now. They at least have the people they picked running the show.
And yes GM took money that was given to them in exchange for equity to pay down the loan. They are good on the loan part from the government.
04-29-2010, 08:25 PM
#90
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless of how everyone on this board feels about it, this entire fiasco is actually good news for GM. It's good news for anyone to reduce their debt at any point in life. The commercials were a stupid move, but seriously GM needs all the help they can get right now, fudging one fact on this is the least of their worries.
05-06-2010, 08:28 PM
#91
11 Second Club
iTrader: (20)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Jonesboro, Ga
Posts: 1,988
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually I do have a clue considering im a UAW rep. I understand the costs that go into employing workers as well as legacy costs that have existed in my family for years. Actually the workers have taken huge losses in exchange for continued benefits. And if you want to bad mouth the workers because they worked for a company with a poor business model as well as having to exist in an economy where the demands of the shareholders continue to drive the cost to live in this country up by all means knock yourself out...but youre still wrong 
The stockholders want your company to return to profitability. Blaming the stockholders is like blaming the scale that your fat. There are hundreds of reasons prices are rising in America for many goods.. the stockholders merely provide a measurement of that. If a company can increase profitability, it's perfectly normal to increase prices. At some point though, items no longer become a value. In modern society, costs are going up in all markets due to horrific worldwide policy. Stockholders demand that the companies they invest in maintain some sort of long-term profitability.. you can't blame the investors for wanting to actually make a profit.. blame the policies that increased prices that lead to the need to increase prices to remain profitable to begin with.
FWIW: I do invest quite frequently, I'm not just stating this pointlessly. I, am, however, tired of stockholders taking the blame for trying to invest in companies who operate efficiently.
Later,
Josh
Last edited by distortion_69; 05-06-2010 at 08:29 PM. Reason: error
05-07-2010, 11:52 AM
#92
WANNABE GENIUS
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Coal Valley, IL
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The market may dictate your wages are too high, you aren't selling enough cars, or earning enough profit. Whatever the case may be, wages should be flexible. If the company isn't making profit, things will have to be sacrificed. Sometimes jobs, as is obviously apparent in recent times.
The stockholders want your company to return to profitability. Blaming the stockholders is like blaming the scale that your fat. There are hundreds of reasons prices are rising in America for many goods.. the stockholders merely provide a measurement of that. If a company can increase profitability, it's perfectly normal to increase prices. At some point though, items no longer become a value. In modern society, costs are going up in all markets due to horrific worldwide policy. Stockholders demand that the companies they invest in maintain some sort of long-term profitability.. you can't blame the investors for wanting to actually make a profit.. blame the policies that increased prices that lead to the need to increase prices to remain profitable to begin with.
FWIW: I do invest quite frequently, I'm not just stating this pointlessly. I, am, however, tired of stockholders taking the blame for trying to invest in companies who operate efficiently.
Later,
Josh
The stockholders want your company to return to profitability. Blaming the stockholders is like blaming the scale that your fat. There are hundreds of reasons prices are rising in America for many goods.. the stockholders merely provide a measurement of that. If a company can increase profitability, it's perfectly normal to increase prices. At some point though, items no longer become a value. In modern society, costs are going up in all markets due to horrific worldwide policy. Stockholders demand that the companies they invest in maintain some sort of long-term profitability.. you can't blame the investors for wanting to actually make a profit.. blame the policies that increased prices that lead to the need to increase prices to remain profitable to begin with.
FWIW: I do invest quite frequently, I'm not just stating this pointlessly. I, am, however, tired of stockholders taking the blame for trying to invest in companies who operate efficiently.
Later,
Josh
For starters, theres two kinds of profitable. The kind thats honest and earns profit through better quality and design and then theres the kind of profit thats earned though means of destructiveness. And another way to put it is that now we have a market that says last years record profit is now this years average. So therefore these companies do what ever they can to top the previous year. Its never enough to be in the green anymore.
Secondly, I invest in companies to and certainly enjoy the companies I invest in turning a profit. But if the money I get from it is earned because the company I invested in thew 100s or 1000s outta work to get it, I dont want it. Id much rather a family employed by GM,that may have a child with a leukemia, have a quality of health coverage that allows them to have treatment for their child that doesnt result in that same family in bankruptcy court several months later because the bills sucked their accounts dry. But thats just my morals and I think people come before money or the stock market.
Last edited by wannabess00; 05-07-2010 at 12:09 PM.
05-07-2010, 04:52 PM
#94
WANNABE GENIUS
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Coal Valley, IL
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yea ive heard the personal responsibility argument enough times already. All I can say to that is anyone who actually believes its as simple as answers like that probably doesnt have much respect for lifes complexities and obstacles
Last edited by wannabess00; 05-07-2010 at 05:15 PM.
05-07-2010, 05:15 PM
#95
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming thats a "personal responsibility" jab at my comment and my response is open your eyes. Theres 300million people in this country and more and more jobs leaving for cheaper labor everyday. College prices are sky rocketing year after year to the point of a debt so high that peoples credit is ruined before they are 30. And whether people like you want to except it or not people are born high and low IQs and every nit in between. Theres people that werent born to be accountants or office workers and just want to be a welder or machinist or assembler. What would have become of these people? Just let them starve and live off of govt welfare all there lives?
05-07-2010, 05:37 PM
#96
WANNABE GENIUS
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Coal Valley, IL
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you're going a bit far with this one... the people that "werent born to be accountants or office workers" shouldn't expect the same salary/benefits as someone with that kind of job. There is a difference between a "fair wage," and getting paid $50k+ to help assemble the rear cargo area of a Chevrolet Traverse. People in the labor sector of the market make less money. But since you were so quick to say that you would rather make less money so someone in dire straights can benefit, what is your stance on the new healthcare reform and the way taxing is being shifted around a bit?
"You can pay assembly line workers the slave wages and have machines fabricate your cars but the best trick will be figuring out how to sell these people the cars they now cant afford to own" Walter Reuther UAW President
05-07-2010, 06:09 PM
#97
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahh yes...the best kinds of people are the ones who feel its there place to define what someone else is worth. And without ever even doing the job they are claiming to understand so much about they can determine how easy a task it really is.
"You can pay assembly line workers the slave wages and have machines fabricate your cars but the best trick will be figuring out how to sell these people the cars they now cant afford to own" Walter Reuther UAW President
"You can pay assembly line workers the slave wages and have machines fabricate your cars but the best trick will be figuring out how to sell these people the cars they now cant afford to own" Walter Reuther UAW President
05-07-2010, 07:05 PM
#98
WANNABE GENIUS
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Coal Valley, IL
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well what exactly is a "lower level" assembly line worker? Ive been reading contractual language many years now and have never heard that term. There are assembly line workers and they build a wide variety of things but to say that theres a lower level would imply that theres a higher level as well
05-07-2010, 07:38 PM
#100
especially in these recent hard times.