WASHINGTON - The Treasury Department said Thursday it has exited its investment in Chrysler LLC after Italian automaker Fiat SpA purchased the U.S. government's remaining holdings in the auto company. Fiat paid $560 million to the Treasury Department for the government's 98,000 shares. Fiat has run the company since it emerged from bankruptcy protection in June 2009. $11.2 billion (out of 12.5 billion) of the assistance has been repaid, Treasury says. Treasury said it likely won't recover the remaining $1.3 billion. Chrysler has made a remarkable turnaround from two years ago, when it was rescued by the government. Story here.
:| That would be great logic.. Let a business that tanked leading to a even greater economic diseaster in Michigan along with even more people out of work.. Instead of bailing them out in which they fully pay back two years later along with the business being stable..
:| That would be great logic.. Let a business that tanked leading to a even greater economic diseaster in Michigan along with even more people out of work.. Instead of bailing them out in which they fully pay back two years later along with the business being stable..
Who cares about the economy? pish, let the corp tank and workers lose their jobs.
Ahh. That explains why I'm seeing so many Fiat 500s at the local Dodge dealer. I wondered why they chose them of all automakers (still don't really know why they'd bother saving them, it's not as if they're worth it).
Have to look into this a little bit, but my first thought is why are we forfeiting 1.3 billion exactly?
chessmaster1989
Yes I'm wondering that as well. That said at the relatively small price tag of 1 billion, I'd say this was a worthwhile investment.I guess it's like if I lend you $100. Then you pay me back $90. Then my wife asks if you ever paid me back. I just say "Yes, dear."........ because I just forfeit the money you still owe so I have bragging rites to say I got my money back. :p
Have to look into this a little bit, but my first thought is why are we forfeiting 1.3 billion exactly?
YellowOneKinobi
Yes I'm wondering that as well. That said at the relatively small price tag of 1 billion, I'd say this was a worthwhile investment.I guess it's like if I lend you $100. Then you pay me back $90. Then my wife asks if you ever paid me back. I just say "Yes, dear."........ because I just forfeit the money you still owe so I have bragging rites to say I got my money back. :p
Well you could argue that tax revenue genratedbecause of them still existing will make up that difference easily given enough time than them just not existing.
WASHINGTON - The Treasury Department said Thursday it has exited its investment in Chrysler LLC after Italian automaker Fiat SpA purchased the U.S. government's remaining holdings in the auto company. Fiat paid $560 million to the Treasury Department for the government's 98,000 shares. Fiat has run the company since it emerged from bankruptcy protection in June 2009. $11.2 billion (out of 12.5 billion) of the assistance has been repaid, Treasury says. Treasury said it likely won't recover the remaining $1.3 billion. Chrysler has made a remarkable turnaround from two years ago, when it was rescued by the government. Story here.topsemag55
:lol: Oh what a difference a headline makes :lol:
Same story..... except this one reads "US Loses $1.3 Billion in Exiting Chrysler"
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] Yes I'm wondering that as well. That said at the relatively small price tag of 1 billion, I'd say this was a worthwhile investment.sSubZerOo
I guess it's like if I lend you $100. Then you pay me back $90. Then my wife asks if you ever paid me back. I just say "Yes, dear."........ because I just forfeit the money you still owe so I have bragging rites to say I got my money back. :p
Well you could argue that tax revenue genratedbecause of them still existing will make up that difference easily given enough time than them just not existing.
I could also say that by convincing my boss to hire me an assistant that I "created or saved" one million jobs. (Because technically I created one and nobody can prove one way or another if I 'saved' the other 999,999 jobs)
Have to look into this a little bit, but my first thought is why are we forfeiting 1.3 billion exactly?
chessmaster1989
Yes I'm wondering that as well. That said at the relatively small price tag of 1 billion, I'd say this was a worthwhile investment. What I'm thinking is Fiat paid for those shares at the current market price (just like anyone else buying shares would), but the total price was less than what the government had loaned in the bailout.
Misleading Subject Line is MisleadingYellowOneKinobi
You're wrong - read the first line of the article I linked, gov't exiting means the final payment was made. So basically you're telling me you have little knowledge of how stock purchases and sales are done.:P
[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]Misleading Subject Line is Misleadingtopsemag55
You're wrong - read the first line of the article I linked, gov't exiting means the final payment was made. So basically you're telling me you have little knowledge of how stock purchases and sales are done.:PFinal payment will never be made.
[QUOTE="topsemag55"][QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]Misleading Subject Line is MisleadingYellowOneKinobi
You're wrong - read the first line of the article I linked, gov't exiting means the final payment was made. So basically you're telling me you have little knowledge of how stock purchases and sales are done.:PFinal payment will never be made. Wrong again - the US gov't does not own any more shares of Chrysler LLC - it's out of the picture, Fiat has > 50% control of the company now.
[QUOTE="topsemag55"] You're wrong - read the first line of the article I linked, gov't exiting means the final payment was made. So basically you're telling me you have little knowledge of how stock purchases and sales are done.:Ptopsemag55
Final payment will never be made. Wrong again - the US gov't does not own any more shares of Chrysler LLC - it's out of the picture, Fiat has > 50% control of the company now.Never paid back the full amount owed, regardless of any accounting tricks.
It's funny how many people (not you topsemag55) like go after 'Fat Cats' for "playing games" with the tax code and loop-holes, unless it's something that paints their political 'side' in a good light.
:| That would be great logic.. Let a business that tanked leading to a even greater economic diseaster in Michigan along with even more people out of work.. Instead of bailing them out in which they fully pay back two years later along with the business being stable..
Why would you want to keep a failing company afloat?
:| That would be great logic.. Let a business that tanked leading to a even greater economic diseaster in Michigan along with even more people out of work.. Instead of bailing them out in which they fully pay back two years later along with the business being stable..
Why would you want to keep a failing company afloat?Cause it helps the economy through taxes and employs thousands and thousands of people.
:| That would be great logic.. Let a business that tanked leading to a even greater economic diseaster in Michigan along with even more people out of work.. Instead of bailing them out in which they fully pay back two years later along with the business being stable..
CaveJohnson1
Why would you want to keep a failing company afloat?Cause it helps the economy through taxes and employs thousands and thousands of people.How does keeping businesses who don't make enough money to sustain itself good for the economy?
[QUOTE="BMD004"]Why would you want to keep a failing company afloat?
BMD004
Cause it helps the economy through taxes and employs thousands and thousands of people.How does keeping businesses who don't make enough money to sustain itself good for the economy?It just paid back it's money owed. So now it provides jobs, tech and taxes, those all help the economy.
[QUOTE="BMD004"][QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]Cause it helps the economy through taxes and employs thousands and thousands of people.
CaveJohnson1
How does keeping businesses who don't make enough money to sustain itself good for the economy?It just paid back it's money owed. So now it provides jobs, tech and taxes, those all help the economy.It paid back the government with another loan.
[QUOTE="topsemag55"][QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]Final payment will never be made.
YellowOneKinobi
Wrong again - the US gov't does not own any more shares of Chrysler LLC - it's out of the picture, Fiat has > 50% control of the company now.Never paid back the full amount owed, regardless of any accounting tricks.
It's funny how many people (not you topsemag55) like go after 'Fat Cats' for "playing games" with the tax code and loop-holes, unless it's something that paints their political 'side' in a good light.
What "accounting tricks"?:? Fiat didn't tell the US, "Give me those 98,000 shares and right now.":lol: The government of its own choice decided to sell their remaining shares to Fiat at the current market price - their choice, not Fiat's. The only choice Fiat had was to say no to the proffered sale (and that's if they even could, which probably they could not). Haven't you heard, we needed that $560 million - we're flat broke.:lol:
:| That would be great logic.. Let a business that tanked leading to a even greater economic diseaster in Michigan along with even more people out of work.. Instead of bailing them out in which they fully pay back two years later along with the business being stable..
sSubZerOo
It is great logic. Whatever happens as a result of them tanking is immaterial. They got themselves into the mess, they should have gotten themselves out.
:| That would be great logic.. Let a business that tanked leading to a even greater economic diseaster in Michigan along with even more people out of work.. Instead of bailing them out in which they fully pay back two years later along with the business being stable..
airshocker
It is great logic. Whatever happens as a result of them tanking is immaterial. They got themselves into the mess, they should have gotten themselves out.
One good thing to come out of it was Chrysler got out from under Daimler-Benz, who cared a lot more about Mercedes than the US.
Not too long ago, an uncle of mine had to close his small business. About 20 people lost their jobs. Why did his tax dollars keep another failing company afloat? Where was his bailout? Why couldn't he get a lump sum on an equivalent per-person basis? Chrysler employs what... around 50,000 people? $12.5 billion comes out to around $250k per employee. Based on that approximation, why couldn't he get a check for $5 million to keep his business running?
Not too long ago, an uncle of mine had to close his small business. About 20 people lost their jobs. Why did his tax dollars keep another failing company afloat? Where was his bailout? Why couldn't he get a lump sum on an equivalent per-person basis? Chrysler employs what... around 50,000 people? $12.5 billion comes out to around $250k per employee. Based on that approximation, why couldn't he get a check for $5 million to keep his business running?
Oleg_Huzwog
To be fair, maybe he should have been helped...
but car development and their manufacturing are very very very expensive.
[QUOTE="BMD004"]How does keeping businesses who don't make enough money to sustain itself good for the economy?BMD004
It just paid back it's money owed. So now it provides jobs, tech and taxes, those all help the economy.It paid back the government with another loan.no???
Cause it helps the economy through taxes and employs thousands and thousands of people.
CaveJohnson1
With taxpayer money that essentially makes the company worthless.
I don't want nationalized jobs, or government jobs. I want private sector jobs created solely by profit.
That's what we have now. Gov't intervention saved the company and thousands of jobs, and probably the michigan economy. The gov't even got paid back. The government did exactly what it should have done in economic intervention.
herp derp
Where did the government get the money to pay for that bailout?
Not too long ago, an uncle of mine had to close his small business. About 20 people lost their jobs. Why did his tax dollars keep another failing company afloat? Where was his bailout? Why couldn't he get a lump sum on an equivalent per-person basis? Chrysler employs what... around 50,000 people? $12.5 billion comes out to around $250k per employee. Based on that approximation, why couldn't he get a check for $5 million to keep his business running?
Oleg_Huzwog
You're right, it isn't equitable at all. The outcome of the recession might have been vastly different had the gov't decided to save small businesses instead. But they didn't save all of them - just the ones related to whom they bailed out, such as machining businesses, parts manufacturers, materials suppliers (glass, vinyl, plastic, rubber)
I think I'm going to ask the Federal government for a $10 billion loan in order to keep my hole digging business alive. If they don't, thousands of jobs will be lost. We have to put people to work.
That's what we have now. Gov't intervention saved the company and thousands of jobs, and probably the michigan economy. The gov't even got paid back. The government did exactly what it should have done in economic intervention.
herp derp
CaveJohnson1
No, the government shouldn't be intervening in the economy to that extent at all. It's crony-capitalism at it's finest. Where is the bailouts for small business owners?
I think I'm going to ask the Federal government for a $10 billion loan in order to keep my hole digging business alive. If they don't, thousands of jobs will be lost. We have to put people to work.
SpartanMSU
I'd like to invest in this magnificent business venture.
That's what we have now. Gov't intervention saved the company and thousands of jobs, and probably the michigan economy. The gov't even got paid back. The government did exactly what it should have done in economic intervention.
herp derp
airshocker
No, the government shouldn't be intervening in the economy to that extent at all. It's crony-capitalism at it's finest. Where is the bailouts for small business owners?
Not even when it works, saves the company, the loan is paid back and it saves 50,000 workers joba?
That's what we have now. Gov't intervention saved the company and thousands of jobs, and probably the michigan economy. The gov't even got paid back. The government did exactly what it should have done in economic intervention.
herp derp
CaveJohnson1
No, the government shouldn't be intervening in the economy to that extent at all. It's crony-capitalism at it's finest. Where is the bailouts for small business owners?
Not even when it works, saves the company, the loan is paid back and it saves 50,000 workers joba?
IDK, maybe that should be looked into.
Like SpartanMSU said... why not just pay people to dig holes? It keeps them employed...
No, the government shouldn't be intervening in the economy to that extent at all. It's crony-capitalism at it's finest. Where is the bailouts for small business owners?
BMD004
Not even when it works, saves the company, the loan is paid back and it saves 50,000 workers joba?
IDK, maybe that should be looked into.
Like SpartanMSU said... why not just pay people to dig holes? It keeps them employed...Car companies produce a product, and indirectly are helping to employ hundreds others of other people indirectly.
Not even when it works, saves the company, the loan is paid back and it saves 50,000 workers joba?
IDK, maybe that should be looked into.
CaveJohnson1
Not even. This is why we have bankruptcy laws.
I don't like the precedent it sets. If Uncle Sam will bailout any big company because it made bad business decisions, what incentive do they have for making good decisions?
No, the government shouldn't be intervening in the economy to that extent at all. It's crony-capitalism at it's finest. Where is the bailouts for small business owners?
BMD004
Not even when it works, saves the company, the loan is paid back and it saves 50,000 workers joba?
IDK, maybe that should be looked into.
Like SpartanMSU said... why not just pay people to dig holes? It keeps them employed... Stimulus should've been used for that, shovel-ready you know.:lol:
No, the government shouldn't be intervening in the economy to that extent at all. It's crony-capitalism at it's finest. Where is the bailouts for small business owners?
BMD004
Not even when it works, saves the company, the loan is paid back and it saves 50,000 workers joba?
IDK, maybe that should be looked into.
Like SpartanMSU said... why not just pay people to dig holes? It keeps them employed...
I think I'm going to ask the Federal government for a $10 billion loan in order to keep my hole digging business alive. If they don't, thousands of jobs will be lost. We have to put people to work.
SpartanMSU
I have a real hard time believing that you live in michigan or went to state. It's easier to understand somebodies perspective that doesn't live in this state, but unless you've been wearing blinders your whole life, it's hard to believe that you don't have at least a partial understanding of the problems that would be caused by one of the big three failing.
Not even when it works, saves the company, the loan is paid back and it saves 50,000 workers joba?
IDK, maybe that should be looked into.
airshocker
Not even. This is why we have bankruptcy laws.
I don't like the precedent it sets. If Uncle Sam will bailout any big company because it made bad business decisions, what incentive do they have for making good decisions?
The insentive would be money, exects at chrysler and GM were paid next to nothing when this loan came out, one exect was literrally paid 1 dollar for the year. Just because they were helped doesn't mean that they haven't had extreme money pains as a result of bad decisions.
Log in to comment