Obama putting politics over fiscal responsibility with GM...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...html?mod=e2tw#

U.S. Hurries to Sell GM Stake

By SHARON TERLEP

The U.S. government plans to sell a significant share of its remaining stake in General Motors Co. this summer despite the disappointing performance of the auto maker's stock, people familiar with the matter said.

A sale within the next several months would almost certainly mean U.S. taxpayers will take a loss on their $50 billion rescue of the Detroit auto maker in 2009.

To break even, the U.S. Treasury would need to sell its remaining stake—about 500 million shares—at $53 apiece. GM closed off 27 cents a share at $29.97 in 4 p.m. trading Monday on the New York Stock Exchange, hitting a new low since its $33-a-share November initial public offering.

"Planning for the sale of our remaining GM stock is still at an early stage, and the IPO lock-up does not expire until late May," a Treasury spokesperson said. "At that point, we will consider all of our options, based on our twin goals of protecting taxpayers' interests and exiting as soon as practicable."

Shares have been hurt by rising fuel prices, industry production disruptions and management turnover. At Monday's price, and taking into account shares sold during the IPO, taxpayers would lose more than $11 billion on the rescue if the government dumped the rest of its stake now.

Government officials are willing to take the loss because the Obama administration would like to sever its last ties to the auto maker, the people familiar with the matter said. A summer sale makes it more likely Treasury could sell all of its stake in GM by year's end, avoiding a potentially controversial sale in the 2012 presidential election year.

GM also would like an early exit in large part because it faces tight restrictions on executive pay as long as the U.S. government is a part owner.

GM's successful $23.1 billion IPO in November reduced the U.S. government's stake in GM to 26.5% from 61%. As a condition of the IPO, the Treasury isn't able to sell additional holdings before May 22.

At the time of the IPO, Treasury officials and banks underwriting the deal believed the price would climb through the winter, enabling the government to sell most or all of its remaining stake within weeks of the lifting of the sales restriction at a narrower loss to taxpayers, the people familiar said.

Shares have fallen by recent events that have undermined investor confidence in GM. Those include the rise in gas prices, which hurt sales of big, highly profitable trucks. Wall Street also is fretting over recent management moves such as the unexpected departure of Chief Financial Officer Chris Liddell.

Investors also were spooked by GM's sales-incentive blitz in January and February, which could temper the auto maker's first-quarter earnings. GM is expected to report next month that it made money in the first quarter and generated cash from operations, people familiar with the matter said.

The size and form of a summer share offering is under discussion at Treasury. A final decision hasn't been made by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who would need to sign off on a big sale. If GM shares dive, Treasury could decide to hold off longer. Unlike in the IPO, when the government, banks and GM worked closely together on the deal, the government has more leeway to decide how to proceed because GM has already gone public.

GM share price could become further depressed after investors holding bonds of the now-bankrupt "old-GM" receive warrants and stock for existing GM shares. That will happen April 21.

Treasury officials haven't contacted GM about a target date for the sale, a person familiar with the matter said. A sale in May is unlikely because Treasury would need time to put together a deal once the May share sales restriction lifts. July is unlikely because investors would likely want to see results from GM's quarter ending June 30. That leaves the months of June, August and September as the prime targets for an offering.

So you want the federal government to stay in the car business longer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

So you want the federal government to stay in the car business longer?

---

:lmao

I need to search back and find that GM thread where I predicted the US would lose their ass on the GM deal and you were one of the biggest defenders of it.

nobody said they'd make money off it, iirc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

:lmao

I need to search back and find that GM thread where I predicted the US would lose their ass on the GM deal and you were one of the biggest defenders of it.

---

I couldn't find it. Did you look?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

I couldn't find it. Did you look?

---

I looked but couldn't find that original long GM thread...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

I looked but couldn't find that original long GM thread...

---

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161001

???

That is a pretty long thread with chump and you in it about the GM ipo, although I didn't find much cheerleading on Chump's part.

(edit: expanded visible threads using the drop menus at the bottom to include all threads from teh "last year" and then sorted the forum by number of replies, it is the easiest way to find a thread with lot of commentary/interest)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

:lmao

I need to search back and find that GM thread where I predicted the US would lose their ass on the GM deal and you were one of the biggest defenders of it.

---

If you find my quotes, let me know too.

It was a no-brainer that this would be a losing deal for us tax payers.

nobody said it was going to be a winning deal, dipshit.

:lol then why was it done in the first place?........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas

:lol then why was it done in the first place?........

---

really? you're better than that.

It prevented Armageddon moran.

GM and Chrysler propups are peanuts compared to AIG, and had much more positive results.

This isn't an example of why the govt shouldn't bail out important american industries, as Wingnuts want just for political leverage, but why the government should never privatize social security funds in the stock market...it simply does a horrible job...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

This isn't an example of why the govt shouldn't bail out important american industries, as Wingnuts want just for political leverage, but why the government should never privatize social security funds in the stock market...it simply does a horrible job...

---

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Unlike the Federal Government that collected the "retirement" money and already spent it all on other shit. What part of "the money is all gone" don't you get?

CC parroting Wall St's talking points.

SS hold US govt bonds. Do you think the US govt will default on those bonds?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

CC parroting Wall St's talking points.

SS hold US govt bonds. Do you think the US govt will default on those bonds?

---

Dumbass. It's pretty simple math. We are in uncharted territory with deficit spending. They steal the real money out of the social security "lockbox", spend it, and replace it with IOU's. Where is the real money going to come from to pay those benefits as the baby boomers retire?

dumbass.

The real money comes from printing it. Those SS funds are sacred, the people have paid in their entire careers, it's not insurance, not welfare, not entitlement.

How about cutting "tax expenditures" to corporations, reducing the MIC, and economic stimulus, of GOOD jobs, to get the current workforce paying into the SS fund.

Do you want to default on SS's bonds and steal working people's "real mony" retirement funds?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

dumbass.

The real money comes from printing it. Those SS funds are sacred, the people have paid in their entire careers, it's not insurance, not welfare, not entitlement.

How about cutting "tax expenditures" to corporations, reducing the MIC, and economic stimulus, of GOOD jobs, to get the current workforce paying into the SS fund.

Do you want to default on SS's bonds and steal working people's "real mony" retirement funds?

---

So the government just prints a few trillion dollars to meet it's obligations? Just like that? That's Boutons plan to fulfill that "sacred" obligation?

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

SS hold US govt bonds. Do you think the US govt will default on those bonds?

---

It might. It's not like the government has the money to repay those bonds SS holds. They can either borrow money to repay borrowed money, or they can tell SS to eat it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Those SS funds are sacred, the people have paid in their entire careers, it's not insurance, not welfare, not entitlement.

---

It's irrelevant. There's more money going out than coming in. The system is going to fail. It's a ponzi scheme and it's failing right before our very eyes. Everyone in line behind the boomers is going to get fucked by social security. They'll pay way more money in than they'll ever get out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

It's irrelevant. There's more money going out than coming in. The system is going to fail. It's a ponzi scheme and it's failing right before our very eyes. Everyone in line behind the boomers is going to get fucked by social security. They'll pay way more money in than they'll ever get out.

---

At the rate we are going, even the boomers will get fucked. Inflation will destroy those defined benefit checks while they rig the CPI numbers so that they aren't inflation adjusted.

"There's more money going out than coming in"

because of the Banksters' Great Depression putting 10%+ out of work, or into shitty jobs. Now the Banksters' hitmen want to kill SS and gamble with people's retirement funds, where The House (Wall St) always wins, and sucker gamblers (Human-American) lose.

"It's a ponzi scheme"

You Lie.

In one sentence you validate CG's statement and then conclude with You Lie.

Comedy Gold.:lobt:

SS is not a Ponzi scheme. That's the phrase Wall St has the Repugs and you people parroting as Wall St comes after SS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

SS is not a Ponzi scheme. That's the phrase Wall St has the Repugs and you people parroting as Wall St comes after SS.

---

You just can't fix stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

SS is not a Ponzi scheme. That's the phrase Wall St has the Repugs and you people parroting as Wall St comes after SS.

---

Yeah right. It's not a ponzi scheme. It's just a system where money is taken from new participants and given to old participants, all in return for a wink and a nod that one day they'll get to be the old participant and there will be a new particpant who can give his money to them. Works just fine until you have too many old participants and not enough new ones.

Bernie Madoff shouldn't be in jail. He should be running the Social Security Administration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

It might. It's not like the government has the money to repay those bonds SS holds. They can either borrow money to repay borrowed money, or they can tell SS to eat it.

---

It indeed might, hence the probably lowering of the AAA rating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

It indeed might, hence the probably lowering of the AAA rating.

---

If it does come to that, it would be as an agreement between Treas & SSA to "forgive" the debt. It wouldn't be a default and wouldn't affect the rating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas

:lol then why was it done in the first place?........

---

Because we would have lost more otherwise? -50 may not be positive but its sure better than -150.

For those of you concerned about the debt....

Has the U.S. ever missed an interest payment?

and

What is the net interest on the debt?