GM's 60-Day Money Back Guarantee?

[PapaG]

Then you don't know what "taxpayer-backed" means.

If it were taxpayer backed, the government would have to write a check to cover the refund amounts. It's not going to do that, so this is GM-backed. The money paid out in refunds comes from GM.

That's not just semantics. You give a guy 50 bucks. He gambles it betting on the NBA and loses. If you are backing his losses, then you are out $100 - the $50 you already gave him, and the $50 you have to pay his bookie. If you aren't backing his losses, you are only out $50.

barfo

Well, in your bookie analogy, you forgot about the vig , which GM doesn't have to repay for some reason. That comes out of the taxpayer/interest account.

The rest of your post is horseshit since nothing has been repaid to the "backers" (read, US).

 

[barfo]

Until bailout money is paid back in full, I can only assume that anything they spend anything on is operating through and as a result of taxpayer funds.

That's simply not correct. Much of the bailout money has been converted to stock. It won't be "paid back", no matter what happens. It might be recouped if a market for GM stock can be established and the government can sell the stock.

barfo

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

That's simply not correct. Much of the bailout money has been converted to stock. It won't be "paid back", no matter what happens. It might be recouped if a market for GM stock can be established and the government can sell the stock.

barfo

then everything they do is a result of taxpayer dollars and is taxpayer and government backed.

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

so..basically we're never getting that money back again.

 

[barfo]

Well, in your bookie analogy, you forgot about the vig , which GM doesn't have to repay for some reason. That comes out of the taxpayer/interest account.

The rest of your post is horseshit since nothing has been repaid.

Don't you guys know the difference between a loan and taking an equity position?

barfo

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

Don't you guys know the difference between a loan and taking an equity position?

barfo

who can we sell the equity to?

 

[barfo]

IMO they should ensure the american consumer of the quality and build of their vehicles and follow in the footsteps of our future Korean masters and offer a 10 year/100,000 mile warranty.

I endorse that suggestion.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

That's simply not correct. Much of the bailout money has been converted to stock. It won't be "paid back", no matter what happens. It might be recouped if a market for GM stock can be established and the government can sell the stock.

barfo

Yet Joe Taxpayer can't buy this stock. You're doing a great job showing why this is was a bad idea on more than one level.

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

I endorse that suggestion.

barfo

This is why American car companies fail. They are fucking morons at the top level.

 

[PapaG]

Don't you guys know the difference between a loan and taking an equity position?

barfo

Who profits from the equity? I think you're confused on private vs. public sector.

 

[barfo]

who can we sell the equity to?

No one, at present, because no one wants it.
If, someday, GM actually becomes a success again, then we can either do an IPO and sell our stake or sell it to a private equity group or another car company.
If it continues to suck, we'll never get the money back.

barfo

 

[barfo]

This is why American car companies fail. They are fucking morons at the top level.

No disagreement there.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

No one, at present, because no one wants it.
If, someday, GM actually becomes a success again, then we can either do an IPO and sell our stake or sell it to a private equity group or another car company.
If it continues to suck, we'll never get the money back.

barfo

Even if it prospers in this gov't program, we won't get our money back. The unions did OK, however.

 

[barfo]

Yet Joe Taxpayer can't buy this stock. You're doing a great job showing why this is was a bad idea on more than one level.

Right, Joe the Taxpayer can't buy the stock. It's not public because - get this - GM went bankrupt and the stockholders were wiped out.

I'm not sure Joe the Taxpayer would be very smart to buy GM at this point anyway.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

Right, Joe the Taxpayer can't buy the stock. It's not public because - get this - GM went bankrupt and the stockholders were wiped out.

I'm not sure Joe the Taxpayer would be very smart to buy GM at this point anyway.

barfo

The union employees weren't wiped out, however. They get to keep their retirement, thanks to Joe Taxpayer.

 

[barfo]

Even if it prospers in this gov't program, we won't get our money back. The unions did OK, however.

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The unions got the same stock we did. If their stock actually becomes worth something, so will ours. If it doesn't, they got the same raw deal the taxpayers got.

barfo

 

[barfo]

The employees weren't wiped out, however. They get to keep their retirement.

You are in favor of employees being wiped out?

barfo

 

[barfo]

Who profits from the equity? I think you're confused on private vs. public sector.

I'm not sure what your question means, but whoever owns the equity profits from the equity, assuming the equity is worth anything.

barfo

 

[barfo]

I don't own stock in GM. I can't even buy GM stock. Who is "we", and how do "we" benefit from this program?

"we the people"

barfo

 

[MrJayremmie]

Haha, look at barfo go!

 

[maxiep]

The Chrysler bailout in the 80s worked because they were government-backed loans. Chrysler knew it had to get its act together and under Iacocca did a decent job of cutting costs and improving its product. The current bailouts of GM and Chrysler were nothing more than transfers of wealth from the taxpayers to the UAW. GM is just continuing to piss money down a rathole. As for Chrysler, how soon before Fiat tries to renegotiate the deal? Fix It Again Tony has its balance sheet firmly attached to the US Government teet and it's not going to let go.

Good intentions have killed the US auto industry.

 

[yakbladder]

Well, in your bookie analogy, you forgot about the vig , which GM doesn't have to repay for some reason. That comes out of the taxpayer/interest account.

The rest of your post is horseshit since nothing has been repaid to the "backers" (read, US).

Here's a simple line you can use in the future.

"Barfo, I apologize, you are right about that part. I apparently was mis-interpreting the terms of the deal or else my source of information was incorrect."

 

[maxiep]

Don't you guys know the difference between a loan and taking an equity position?

barfo

I used to know the difference. Now I know if I have a debt instrument in a company and the Government decides it wants to cut in line, my debt is suboordinate to the UAW.

 

[blazerboy30]

The bailout money basically a sunk cost (which I think is generally what Barfo is saying) and we won't have to ADD money because of this program.

The question PapaG and BTown seem to be wanting to answer is: How do you make the best moves to get what you can back and the most benefit from that cost?

Doing your proposed trade/swap idea would probably get you some benefit from that sunk cost. Will that get you more benefit than trying to get GM profitable and making the shares that we own worth more? I don't know.

My personal opinion is that even if GM returns to profitability and our shares become worth something, the government will just look at any money coming back as appearing out of thin air and spend it on their pet projects.

 

[PapaG]

The bailout money basically a sunk cost (which I think is generally what Barfo is saying) and we won't have to ADD money because of this program.

The question PapaG and BTown seem to be wanting to answer is: How do you make the best moves to get what you can back and the most benefit from that cost?

Doing your proposed trade/swap idea would probably get you some benefit from that sunk cost. Will that get you more benefit than trying to get GM profitable and making the shares that we own worth more? I don't know.

My personal opinion is that even if GM returns to profitability and our shares become worth something, the government will just look at any money coming back as appearing out of thin air and spend it on their pet projects.

Correct. A sunk cost that helps subsidize this riduculous guarantee with no immediate or visible return of the "shareholders". Are the taxpayers going to receive dividends if the stock improves?

Also, barfo is absolutely incorrect in the UAW pensions being dissolved with what used to be GM stock. Protecting those retirement funds was a part of the "bail-out" and was basically a hand-out to the UAW.

 

[PapaG]

"we the people"

barfo

So how do "we the people" benefit from the new GM stock that "we the people" are paying for?

 

[PapaG]

You are in favor of employees being wiped out?

barfo

When I'm paying for their retirement, and my retirement has no protection because I'm not in a union? Yeah, I'm for them being wiped out. That's the risk a person takes by depending on a single retirement plan in a "private" (cough) company.

 

[PapaG]

Here's a simple line you can use in the future.

"Barfo, I apologize, you are right about that part. I apparently was mis-interpreting the terms of the deal or else my source of information was incorrect."

Except I'm not wrong, and barfo was wrong about the retirement.

A simple line for you? Butt out of conversations that you aren't involved in.

 

[MrJayremmie]

A simple line for you? Butt out of conversations that you aren't involved in.

How can one become involved in the conversation then? Must he ask permission?

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

There's a fundamental problem with your analysis here. Uncle Taxpayer isn't paying the refund, GM is. So GMs profits won't soar.

barfo

Isn't Uncle Taxpayer, in actuality, GM?