U.S. sells all its GM shares taking $10B loss

[Strictly Street]

No returns.... interesting...

 

How many people were bitching when WNF closed during the shutdown?

How many people were bitching that national monuments closed?

How many people were bitching when white house tours stopped?

How many people were bitching when they couldn't get their passport applications processed?

How many people were bitching when their TSA lines got longer?

 

The government spends tax money on public resources, things that you and I have equal opportunity to enjoy.

 

Which of course would include the equal opportunity to not enjoy the profits of the private company we just gave 10.5 Billion + dollars.

 

 

Magley64 You are truly the master of thread jackers.

You've already bashed conservatives, religion, called people out on Obamacare and your just getting warmed up. I am impressed!

[magley64]

Which of course would include the equal opportunity to not enjoy the profits of the private company we just gave 10.5 Billion + dollars.

 

 

Magley64 You are truly the master of thread jackers.

You've already bashed conservatives, religion, called people out on Obamacare and your just getting warmed up. I am impressed!

 

Is the stock going UP or is the stock going DOWN?

seems like GM is at a peak as of recent.... if I were buying/selling I'd sell right now, too...

 

But if you honestly think GM will do better than they are right now, and it's a bad idea fiscally to sell right now, I'd suggest you take your life savings and dump it into GM stock right now... apparently there is a ton of volume trading right now as The governments shares are being sold.

Edited December 10, 2013 by magley64

[madcat6183]

I blame Obama, oh, wait.

[Strictly Street]

Is the stock going UP or is the stock going DOWN?

seems like GM is at a peak as of recent.... if I were buying/selling I'd sell right now, too...

 

But if you honestly think GM will do better than they are right now, and it's a bad idea fiscally to sell right now, I'd suggest you take your life savings and dump it into GM stock right now... apparently there is a ton of volume trading right now as The governments shares are being sold.

 

How can we factor in the government manipulation of the market? It would seem that that is what happened in it's most basic meaning.

 

Any investor will tell you riding the daily ups and downs is for suckers, trends over time is the real winners. Not sure your market advice is sound.

[magley64]

How can we factor in the government manipulation of the market? It would seem that that is what happened in it's most basic meaning.

 

Any investor will tell you riding the daily ups and downs is for suckers, trends over time is the real winners. Not sure your market advice is sound.

 

If you think selling all of the GM stock is a bad idea for the government, then you should be buying all the stock they are selling and reap the benefit of it continuing to go up. If your complaint about the government is sound you will personally become wealthy on their poor investment choice.

 

I don't care how long you hold the stock, I just care which direction it goes.

 

Was selling the stock NOW a good idea? yes or no...

[Strictly Street]

If you think selling all of the GM stock is a bad idea for the government, then you should be buying all the stock they are selling and reap the benefit of it continuing to go up. If your complaint about the government is sound you will personally become wealthy on their poor investment choice.

 

I don't care how long you hold the stock, I just care which direction it goes.

 

Was selling the stock NOW a good idea? yes or no...

 

A good idea - for whom?

From what point of view?

From the governments point of view?

From the shareholders point of view?

From my point of view?

Or from your point of view?

Edited December 11, 2013 by Strictly Street

[Strictly Street]

On a related note:

GM doesn't owe $450 million in retiree benefits, U.S. judge rules

(Reuters) - A federal judge said General Motors Co is not required to pay $450 million to cover medical benefits for retirees, in a defeat for the United Auto Workers union.

 

In a 36-page decision, U.S. District Judge Avern Cohn in Detroit said on Tuesday that the current GM did not assume any obligation for the payment, which the automaker had contracted to make two years before its June 2009 bankruptcy filing.

 

The payment had been part of a June 2007 contract between the old GM, its former Delphi Corp affiliate and the UAW.

 

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/gm-doesn-39-t-owe-450-million-retiree-170823484--sector.html

[magley64]

A good idea - for whom?

From what point of view?

From the governments point of view?

From the shareholders point of view?

From my point of view?

Or from your point of view?

 

For the government's investment portfolio, are they going to lose money by selling the stock yesterday as opposed to today or tomorrow... or however long these peole who are complaining want them to hold the stock.

[Tonik]

For the government's investment portfolio, are they going to lose money by selling the stock yesterday as opposed to today or tomorrow... or however long these peole who are complaining want them to hold the stock.

 

Straw man.  The complaint is they lied to us about losing money on the bailout.

[magley64]

Straw man.

 

 

What was their best investment option "now"? sell or hold?

 

 

As for them "lying" how are they supposed to predict the future of the market?

 

It's not like they are blackstone, lending money to a small company to ensure they get paid on their credit default swap...

Edited December 11, 2013 by magley64

[Tonik]

 

 

As for them "lying" how are they supposed to predict the future of the market?

 

It's not like they are blackstone, lending money to a small company to ensure they get paid on their credit default swap...

 

 

You raise a very good point my friend. There is no way they could know that. Guess that makes their lie even worse.

[magley64]

You raise a very good point my friend. There is no way they could know that. Guess that makes their lie even worse.

 

 

do you also accuse the weatherman of lying?

[Strictly Street]

For the government's investment portfolio, are they going to lose money by selling the stock yesterday as opposed to today or tomorrow... or however long these peole who are complaining want them to hold the stock.

 

Umm, they lost 10 Billion, all at once. Sounds like a bad call to me.

 

The government received 912 million GM shares, or a 60.8 per cent stake in the automaker, in exchange for a $49.5 billion bailout during the financial crisis in 2008 and 2009. It recovered $39 billion of the money, meaning taxpayers came up more than $10 billion short.

 

And

 

GM shares rose 1.2 per cent in after-hours trading following the announcement. They rose 1.8 per cent in regular trading, at one point reaching $41.17, the highest level since GM returned to the markets with a November 2010 initial public offering.

 

 

Perhaps their timing was off a touch. a 1.2% increase after the announcement? So it was flat before?

 

GM pays off its bailout loansBy Peter Valdes-Dapena, senior writer April 21, 2010: 1:13 PM ET

 

Follow Peter on Twitter: @PeterDrives

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- General Motors has made a final payment of $5.8 billion to the U.S. and Canadian governments, paying off the last of its $6.7 billion in loans, the company said Wednesday.

 

 

Somebody is not telling the whole story here.....

[Tonik]

do you also accuse the weatherman of lying?

 

Explain to me how that is even remotely a genuine comment. There is a big difference between a weatherman who is wrong and an elected official spending my money and knowingly lying about it. And keep in mind, I never said knowingly until you pointed out they had to have known. 

[Tonik]

Umm, they lost 10 Billion, all at once. Sounds like a bad call to me.

 

 

Perhaps their timing was off a touch. a 1.2% increase after the announcement? So it was flat before?

 

 

Somebody is not telling the whole story here.....

 

There were several transactions between the car makers and us taxpayers.  Bush loaned them some money, then Obama loaned them some more money, then Obama seized control of GM and infused it with a ton of cash, taking stock as collateral.  So you will have a hard time figuring out all the money and how it flowed back and forth. I think that was by design.

[magley64]

Explain to me how that is even remotely a genuine comment. There is a big difference between a weatherman who is wrong and an elected official spending my money and knowingly lying about it. And keep in mind, I never said knowingly until you pointed out they had to have known.

Stocks are fluid... if you can accurately predict how stocks will move, you can make a lot of money... being wrong about how a stock will move in future does not make you a liar, just as incorrectly forecasting the weather does not make you a liar.

[bloodninja420]

Lets not forget that the US gov whiped out GM's bondholders in a blatently illegal move that benefited the UAW. The real loss is a hell of a lot more than $10bn when you account for that unprecedented move.

The exec branch is basically ruling by fiat these days and no one seems to want to do anything about it.

[Strictly Street]

There were several transactions between the car makers and us taxpayers.  Bush loaned them some money, then Obama loaned them some more money, then Obama seized control of GM and infused it with a ton of cash, taking stock as collateral.  So you will have a hard time figuring out all the money and how it flowed back and forth. I think that was by design.

 

I think you might be onto something here.

 

Also, exactly where does the Constitution allow such activity by the Federal government?

 

Great question.

[Revelstoker]

We elected them, and keep electing them. We have met the enemy and it is us.

 

Nuff said.

 

Here is what we know for sure. Someone got paid and repaid in this issue and it wasn't the little guys.

If you are pissed, then use the power that is granted to you and do something about it = don't vote for an incumbent and don't support the Dems or the Reps.

 

If you really want change, then vote it in at the local, state and federal level. Vote for a Libertarian party candidate or any other party member that has a legitimate chance of forming a government.

 

Voting Dem/Rep and hoping for a change is by definition, Insanity!

[Strictly Street]

Nuff said.

 

Here is what we know for sure. Someone got paid and repaid in this issue and it wasn't the little guys.

If you are pissed, then use the power that is granted to you and do something about it = don't vote for an incumbent and don't support the Dems or the Reps.

 

If you really want change, then vote it in at the local, state and federal level. Vote for a Libertarian party candidate or any other party member that has a legitimate chance of forming a government.

 

Voting Dem/Rep and hoping for a change is by definition, Insanity!

 

Sounds like good advice. Of all the political parties out there in USA politics only three are represented by any real numbers. Democrats, Republicans and Tea Partiers. The rest have a representative or two but that is it. This would include the Libertarian Party, The Communist party, The Green Party etc.

 

Oddly enough Republicans and Democrats both seem to assign some pretty strange ideals to the Tea Partiers. Unlike most of the other "Political Action" type of movements they are not supported by either of the two major parties and of course don't get any funding from them. Of all the political parties out there the Obama administration is waging war on only one, The Tea party. This would be evidenced by the IRS tactics used to suppress their activities.

 

Both parties have tried to take over the movement as well. Which has resulted in a splinter groups such as "The Tea Party Express".

 

Splinter groups or not one thing that they all share is the Democrats and the Republicans don't like them. Maybe that is the thing to look for in the next election because more of the same thing doesn't seem to be working.

[magley64]

I see the tea party as a subset of the republican party (look at every single tea party candidate in congress, what letter do you see after their name?) supported primarily by the koch brothers to instill a force of obstructionism to the government....

[Strictly Street]

I see the tea party as a subset of the republican party (look at every single tea party candidate in congress, what letter do you see after their name?) supported primarily by the koch brothers to instill a force of obstructionism to the government....

 

Interesting, Koch brothers...  Which may be how you see it but the GOP seems to differ with your opinion of their opinion. Seems they are upset with the Tea Party if I am to believe the press. Ok, you have me there, can we believe the mainstream media? Good question.

 

So which do you see as subsets of the Democratic party?

[magley64]

Ows was the general equivalent to a democratic tea party... but they didn't get big superpac money or corporate sponsors...

Not surprisingly as corporate greed is one of the main complaints of OWS.

Edited December 16, 2013 by magley64

[Strictly Street]

Ows was the general equivalent to a democratic tea party... but they didn't get big superpac money or corporate sponsors...

Not surprisingly as corporate greed is one of the main complaints of OWS.

 

Really?

 

$3.6 Million from Soros Backs 'Occupy Wall Street', Media Ignore or Downplay Connection

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/iris-somberg/2011/10/14/36-million-soros-aids-groups-support-promote-occupy-wall-street#ixzz2nb46LzDq

 

 

Monday, Oct 10, 2011 5:35 PM UTC

Dems backing Occupy Wall St. are funded by Wall St.

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/10/dems_backing_occupy_wall_st_are_funded_by_wall_st/

 

That's a fast google search but it does seem clear that they were in fact backed by somebody, a lot of somebodies. Including the self serving Micheal Moore's and the like.

To spontaneously be media darlings, in so many cities, at the same time, with the support of the unions, particularly the government ones with paid protesters?

It would seem you aren't all that sure of your parties affiliates, allies, supporters or even their motivations.

 

Not shocked, just curious what you would say.

 

Interesting that Superpacs is one of the first things you mention.

 

Democrats seize super PAC crown

Liberal groups outraise conservative counterparts 2-to-1 during first half of 2013

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/08/01/13104/democrats-seize-super-pac-crown

[magley64]

3.6 million is pennies compared to the tea party superpacs... and democrat superpacs support the establishment democrats, not the fringe which is so often the case with conservative superpacs, there wasn't a single OWS candidate on the ballot.