Monday, September 17, 2012

General Motors pushing U.S. to sell stake: report

CHICAGO (MarketWatch) -- The Treasury Department is resisting General Motors' push for the government to sell off its stake in the auto maker, The Wall Street Journal reports. Following a $50 billion bailout in 2009, the U.S. taxpayers now own almost 27% of the company. But the newspaper said GM executives are now chafing at that, saying it hurts the company's reputation and its ability to attract top talent due to pay restrictions. Earlier this year, GM /quotes/zigman/1466682/quotes/nls/gm GM -1.37% presented a plan to repurchase 200 million of the 500 million shares the U.S. holds with the balance being sold via a public offering. But officials at the Treasury Department were not interested as selling now would lead to a multibillion dollar loss for the government, the newspaper noted.


Here is a the link (to a joke of a website)

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/general-motors-pushing-us-to-sell-stake-report-2012-09-17



This from Bloomberg

http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/GM:US

Obama is _________ (fill in the blank!)
Posted by at

9 comments:

  1. Live FreeSeptember 17, 2012 at 11:58 AM

    I think this is hilarious. It doesn't have anything to do with attracting skilled labor. There are still plenty of out of work autoworkers in Detroit that would love to work for GM.

    This is all about year end bonuses. They want their fat check, but they made a deal with the devil and now they have to live with it.

    No way does Obama let the Republicans use this issue against them in the campaign. Also, how is Obama going to force GM to make the Volt if it doesn't have a vested interest in the company anymore?

    ReplyDelete
  2. MickSeptember 17, 2012 at 2:36 PM

    Interesting, so many posters refer to "Government Motors" as a term of derision, yet refuse to believe GM's motives. The UAW did give up significant concessions in the deal and GM is interested in keeping it that way. And Obama isn't forcing them to do anything. The thing about attracting skilled worker is entirely valid also, I have this from two of my relatives who work for GM in management and engineering positions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jean01September 18, 2012 at 5:40 AM

      Mick,

      I think the 'top talent' is hidespeak for supervisory or, most likely, managerial positions.

      Jean

      Delete
    2. MickSeptember 18, 2012 at 11:28 AM

      Jean, that is some of it, but also engineers, computer techs and other technical people. Assembly line workers, probably not.

      Delete
    3. loumanSeptember 18, 2012 at 11:52 AM

      UAW may have given significant concessions however they were well paid with a large portion of the company, i.e. stock and a seat on the board of directors.

      p.s. It also has to do with people refuse to purchase GM stock as long as the government is involved.

      Big no thanks at any price from me as long as Obama has a say in how the company is run. Applies to any company owned by the government.

      Delete
  3. KingstonSeptember 17, 2012 at 3:51 PM

    From so far away it is difficult to comprehend the furore, as I understand it, the Government bailed out GM to prevent the company going under. In the same way foreign governments (including Australia) have been giving massive subsidies to GM and Ford for decades simply to keep them here and to maintain a skilled manufacturing workforce.
    Now, GM having returned to profitability appears to want to get the government shareholding off its board and return to a private enterprise situation.
    It is common knowledge that GM was brought to its knees by the Unions and the GFC. . Perhaps now it is time for the government to extract a dividend from their investment in GM in return for keeping the company afloat.

    Cheers from Aussie

    ReplyDelete
  4. Live FreeSeptember 18, 2012 at 5:51 AM

    What did the Union give up? They traded some benefits for ownership of the company. Further, the Government screwed bond holders. First and only time that happened and it required Congressional intervention because it was against the bankruptcy law of the United States. Another first is that GM was able to carry over losses AFTER the re-organization costing taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. That too required Congressional intervention. No way am I going to feel sorry for them. THey made out like bandits.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MickSeptember 18, 2012 at 11:30 AM

      They gave up quite a lot actually, lower pensions, higher insurance premiums, just do a search.

      Delete
    2. loumanSeptember 18, 2012 at 11:54 AM

      All for a low price of partial ownership of the company, a seat on the board ans billions owed to the union for future benefit payments.

      Delete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)