GM making misleading adverts

[shitbrownMcoupe]

crap cars, should have just let them go under.

[MrRoboto]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

I'm an EE who works in automotive manufacturing. Please don't tell me you want to go down this road. I know more about charging an electric car than you want to know. Trust me on this.

Quick charge stations don't do any good at all with current battery technology. You can only charge them so fast, and a 220V source is plenty for that.

Check out the big brain on Brad....kidding.

Seriously, as far as the infrastructure is concerned, the issue is not with charging stations, it's the impact on the current power grid, productions stations, etc.

A public power delivery design is one thing and frankly quite simple however we are no where near ready for a mass rollout of inexpensive electric cars until we find find a way to produce clean power in abundance and cost effectively.

The best option is likely independent power generation from your home or office. You produce your own power via wind, solar, etc and charge your car yourself with little need for a public power option.

my 2 cents....

[Guibo]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

Do you two ever read the links for yourselves?

God damn it's like shooting blind fish in a barrel. You're both absolutely clueless about the entire process.

From YOUR year old story:

It says:
"Most of the $50 billion in government support for GM was converted into equity in the automaker."

"Most" means more than 50%. It doesn't say that the source of GM's "repayment" of the loan did not come from the escrow account acknowledged by both Bloom and Barofsky. Seriously, are you implying these guys don't know what they're talking about and that you know better? Ok, fine. In your next very post, I would like to hear where you think they got the money, if you think it was theirs to keep forever as you claim. Where did it come from? You can no longer rely on the information which you've been mis-quoting these past few posts, because it points in favor of the existence of the escrow account. Which makes me question if you ever read the links that you post.

[quagmire]

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

Check out the big brain on Brad....kidding.

Seriously, as far as the infrastructure is concerned, the issue is not with charging stations, it's the impact on the current power grid, productions stations, etc.

A public power delivery design is one thing and frankly quite simple however we are no where near ready for a mass rollout of inexpensive electric cars until we find find a way to produce clean power in abundance and cost effectively.

The best option is likely independent power generation from your home or office. You produce your own power via wind, solar, etc and charge your car yourself with little need for a public power option.

my 2 cents....

As of now, the only real practical way to charge the Volt, Leaf, or Tesla would be at home. Most of the time I would assume it would be off peak hours. But, that is for now. I would assume 5-20 years down the road, there will be more options/places to plug in. So yeah, something needs to be done to upgrade the power grid. It is already taxed already from what I hear. Things like this is what the stimulus bill should have addressed( upgrading/working on our infrastructure)

[jeremyc74]

Originally Posted by quagmire

As of now, the only real practical way to charge the Volt, Leaf, or Tesla would be at home. Most of the time I would assume it would be off peak hours. But, that is for now. I would assume 5-20 years down the road, there will be more options/places to plug in. So yeah, something needs to be done to upgrade the power grid. It is already taxed already from what I hear. Things like this is what the stimulus bill should have addressed( upgrading/working on our infrastructure)

Have you been living under a rock?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=114204680


Upgrading the power grid isn't something that GM has any responsibility for. Also, for a commuter car, why would need to recharge it anywhere but at home? The Leaf and Tesla both have way more range than the average person uses on a daily commute, and the Volt will just switch to gas if you've got to go more than 40 miles.

It will be a solid decade before there are enough electric cars on the roads to have any impact on the grid, even if it were left at the capacity it's at right now. There a ton of excess capacity during off peak hours.

[jeremyc74]

Originally Posted by Guibo

It says:
"Most of the $50 billion in government support for GM was converted into equity in the automaker."

"Most" means more than 50%. It doesn't say that the source of GM's "repayment" of the loan did not come from the escrow account acknowledged by both Bloom and Barofsky. Seriously, are you implying these guys don't know what they're talking about and that you know better? Ok, fine. In your next very post, I would like to hear where you think they got the money, if you think it was theirs to keep forever as you claim. Where did it come from? You can no longer rely on the information which you've been mis-quoting these past few posts, because it points in favor of the existence of the escrow account. Which makes me question if you ever read the links that you post.

The details of how the money is broken down have been covered in detail about a dozen times in this thread already. Whether or not there's an escrow account has never been the real issue. The issue is who owned the money in the account, and the answer, in no uncertain terms, is GM.

Here it is ONE MORE TIME for the reading impaired. If youv'e got a more credible source, post it, but ignoring this doesn't make you right, it's making you look stupid.

Originally Posted by Bloom

Q Okay. So that $13.4 (billion) is part of that larger breakdown that you get, it’s not a separate — it’s not looked at or held separately in any way?
MR. BLOOM: No. No, it’s not. What we have in totality and we said this at the time of the restructuring that we thought it would be challenging for the value of the stock to go high enough that the entirety of the investment including the $13.4 (billion) would be repaid and that’s been talked about by the various oversight bodies

[quagmire]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

Have you been living under a rock?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=114204680


Upgrading the power grid isn't something that GM has any responsibility for. Also, for a commuter car, why would need to recharge it anywhere but at home? The Leaf and Tesla both have way more range than the average person uses on a daily commute, and the Volt will just switch to gas if you've got to go more than 40 miles.

It will be a solid decade before there are enough electric cars on the roads to have any impact on the grid, even if it were left at the capacity it's at right now. There a ton of excess capacity during off peak hours.

That's cool that Obama has announced an upgrade to the power grid. Also, good that the article states using solar and wind energy and not nuclear. But, didn't Obama also recently announce the call for nuclear power plants?

Never said it was GM's responsibility to upgrade it.

While I still think hydrogen is the future fuel, if the battery/electricity trend continues, you can't deny that there is a good possibility that plug in stations will start to pop up where people can plug in, do there shopping, etc or plug in while at their job/office.

That is why I put a time range of when this will all start to happen. It isn't happening anytime soon, but if electricity is the future fuel for vehicles, things like plug in stations will start to pop up.

[Guibo]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

The details of how the money is broken down have been covered in detail about a dozen times in this thread already. Whether or not there's an escrow account has never been the real issue. The issue is who owned the money in the account, and the answer, in no uncertain terms, is GM.

Here it is ONE MORE TIME for the reading impaired. If youv'e got a more credible source, post it, but ignoring this doesn't make you right, it's making you look stupid.

Why do you keep quoting that? It's already been established that is the loan from under the Bush administration which has been absorbed in the equity merger.
Whether or not there's an escrow has been the issue. You claimed there was no contingency, that there was no loan amount that was expected to be returned, then proceeded to mis-quote a source to show that only those monies mentioned are the only ones accounted for in the government's backing of GM. You said:
"BECAUSE IT IS THEIRS TO KEEP FOREVER!!!!!!
There was no seperate fund. There was a LOAN, which has been repaid, and there was stock issued."

Read this from the office of TARP's Inspector General:
"In total, Treasury provided the six reviewed companies $81.25B in TARP funds; their use of this money is summarized below.
General Motors...
$13.7B remains unused but is still available to GM. GM officials stated that a portion of these proceeds are expected to be used to pay outstanding loans from Treasury and the Canadian Government. Treasury requires GM to report on its intended use of TARP funds prior to each draw and also receives reports on the actual use of funds.
...A portion of the proceeds of the $30.1B loan to GM was placed in an escrow account so that Treasury could exercise additional supervision over its use. Treasury must approve each withdrawal."

Did GM earn this money? No. It came from taxpayer-supported TARP funds. Can they use it for whatever they want, no strings attached? No.
This money is clearly not GM's. It was provided by taxpayers through TARP. The whole reason it was placed in escrow is so that Treasury could exercise additional supervision over its use. Treasury...not GM.

You claimed the money was theirs to use as they see fit. That's false. How can it be theirs to use as they see fit, or to keep forever, if it's restricted by Treasury?
You claimed there was no expectancy to repay the money. That's also false.

You are the one confusing the loan money absorbed in the equity swap. That's not what we're talking about. The money we're talking about was set up by Treasury as a contingency in case of a souring economy. The money left over was to be returned to repay the loan (itself a laughable "repayment" situation). It wasn't theirs to keep, nor did it have anything to do with stocks or shares in the company.

I think Reuters is probably a more reputable source than yours. Here's the information that you are refusing to acknowledge from the Reuters link:
"GM said this week it would begin paying back the U.S. and Canadian governments next month from a $13-billion escrow account containing cash left over from the government bankruptcy financing that established a new company in July.
[Ron] Bloom said the repayment schedule reflected some relief that the bankruptcy was not more damaging to GM's sales and its network of suppliers. When the escrow account was created, U.S. officials gave it a cash cushion to protect against a more damaging downturn, he said."

The $13.4B loan that you continue to mis-quote on purpose is from the Bush administration, which was authorized 6 months prior to bankruptcy proceedings. That money was absorbed in the equity swap, and has nothing to do with the escrow account. It cannot be considered "cash left over," since it's already being accounted for in shares of stock. Even your own source says GM is drawing from the escrow account. Ie, it's not the amount that was taken in during the equity swap. Got it?

[MrRoboto]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

Have you been living under a rock?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=114204680


Upgrading the power grid isn't something that GM has any responsibility for. Also, for a commuter car, why would need to recharge it anywhere but at home? The Leaf and Tesla both have way more range than the average person uses on a daily commute, and the Volt will just switch to gas if you've got to go more than 40 miles.

It will be a solid decade before there are enough electric cars on the roads to have any impact on the grid, even if it were left at the capacity it's at right now. There a ton of excess capacity during off peak hours.

Of course GM doesn't have direct responsibility for the power grid. They also dont have direct responsibility for crude oil. The system has to work together. I am sure you will see an interest power stations by GM in the years ahead much the same as corn fields.

GM has had electric car technology for many years. Lots of things have to happen before the electric car is viable in a mass market. Battery technology, power grid, consumer education, etc.

If I only had some property in Tibet....

[jeremyc74]

Originally Posted by Guibo

I think Reuters is probably a more reputable source than yours.

My source is a direct interview with the man who's administering the damn bailout. If that's not good enough for you, I've got nothing else to add.

You're obviously never going to just admit that the funds GM used to repay the loan were theirs, so there's no point in continuing with it. It really makes no difference, as it's a done deal, and at this point it's just one more petty little talking point.

[Guibo]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

My source is a direct interview with the man who's administering the damn bailout. If that's not good enough for you, I've got nothing else to add.

You're obviously never going to just admit that the funds GM used to repay the loan were theirs, so there's no point in continuing with it. It really makes no difference, as it's a done deal, and at this point it's just one more petty little talking point.

So is mine. "Bloom told Reuters in a Tuesday interview."
I think we all know what Reuters is. WTF is carlist.com?

In any case, both sources indicate the source of the funding is from the escrow account. How can you continue to say the money was theirs to spend however they wanted to (or to keep "forever!"), when
1) the funding came from taxpayer-supported TARP bailout money, and
2) GM could only disperse those funds under the discretion of Treasury, and
3) GM was expected to return what was not used in the event the economy never soured?

It's pretty obvious who the stubborn one is here: It's you.

[jeremyc74]

Originally Posted by Guibo

I think we all know what Reuters is. WTF is carlist.com?

Are you seriously suggesting they're making up direct quotes? That's the lamest argument you've made yet. Get real!

[Guibo]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

Are you seriously suggesting they're making up direct quotes? That's the lamest argument you've made yet. Get real!

I never said they're making up direct quotes. You asked if I had a more credible source, then I should post it. The implication being that Reuters is somehow not as credible. So now you want to talk about the credibility of the sources (Reuters vs carlist.com).
In any case, do you deny still that the source of funding is from a taxpayer-supported contingency account?

Want to talk about lame arguments, then consider your claim that the money was GM's to spend as they saw fit (or to keep "forever!"). LOL. I'm still waiting for your justification that this was their money. How is it their money if they didn't earn it, and they need Treasury's consent to use it? Are you ever going to answer that? (Sorry, but misquoting from a link and purposefully suppressing information contained therein about the escrow account isn't going to cut it, so don't bother misquoting again.)

More lame arguments: Since GM invests in something, they are therefore responsible for building the infrastructure. LOL.

Another lame argument: GM's responsibility is to build cars, so therefore investing in alternative fuel infrastructures would be wasting their money. LOL.

You're right. It is like shooting blind fish in a barrel. Except you're not the one doing the shooting...

[majin ssj eric]

I think the greater point here is that the money was not theirs to spend. It was taxpayer funded TARP money which was leftover. That money was then used to pay back a different loan (also taxpayer money) and then Whitacre bumbles out on camera claiming that GM paid back its loan with interest. My problem has never been that they paid back a loan. Or even that they used taxpayer money to pay back the taxpayers! My problem was that sanctimonious ad that would lead you to believe that GM has done so well since the bankruptcy that they went ahead and paid back all their government loans. Thats was the overall point of the ad and as we have been saying throughout this thread, its just total BS....

[jeremyc74]

Originally Posted by Guibo

How is it their money if they didn't earn it, and they need Treasury's consent to use it? Are you ever going to answer that? (Sorry, but misquoting from a link and purposefully suppressing information contained therein about the escrow account isn't going to cut it, so don't bother misquoting again.)

..

ONE LAST TIME.

Straight from the man's mouth:

There are three different piles of money General Motors owes the U.S. treasury:
1. $6.7 billion pure loan. That first payment was made in late December or mid-December of about $1 billion. There is $5.7 billion of that debt remaining outstanding.
2. preferred shares - $2.1 billion worth of preferred shares that pay dividends and can be sold anytime. This is owned by governments and the UAW VEBA.
3. 60.8% of common stock
Whitacre said that GM was also going to pay back the $1.2 billion they owned the Canadian/Ontario government.

Show me where it says that the GM owes the government ANYTHING more than the $6.7B loan.

The escrow account was under government control because early on they didn't want GM's execs spending it as they pleased. That was the companies largest shareholder (the government) exercising some control over its investment. That doesn't mean that the money was going to be repaid. It was part of the equity deal, and it's right there in black and white. There is a loan, and there is equity, and THAT IS ALL. Get it?!

To further prove the point:

Was part of that loan written off in the bankruptcy?
Mr. Bloom: The Bush administration did loan General Motors $13.4 (billion), there were some additional investments made and then the DIP loan. Essentially, the entire investment that the Treasury made was converted into the three instruments I described, which is to say the $6.7 (billion) in debt, the $2.1 (billion) of preferred, those two obviously equal $8.8 (billion) of fixed obligations and the 60.8 percent ownership of the common stock. So that’s what the government has and the return on that total investment will be, you know, $8.8 (billion), which we’ll get back in the preferred and the debt plus the interest and dividends, which I spoke about, and obviously, whatever we’re able to realize on the common stock.

Now stop making up this additional account and claiming it's supposed to be repaid. There is a loan of $6B, and equity and nothing more.

[MrRoboto]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

ONE LAST TIME.

Straight from the man's mouth:



Show me where it says that the GM owes the government ANYTHING more than the $6.7B loan.

The escrow account was under government control because early on they didn't want GM's execs spending it as they pleased. That was the companies largest shareholder (the government) exercising some control over its investment. That doesn't mean that the money was going to be repaid. It was part of the equity deal, and it's right there in black and white. There is a loan, and there is equity, and THAT IS ALL. Get it?!

To further prove the point:



Now stop making up this additional account and claiming it's supposed to be repaid. There is a loan of $6B, and equity and nothing more.

I completely agree with you on this. Aside from the loan the rest is equity.

The government invested about $50 billion in GM. The loan portion from the U.S. and Canada was $8.4 billion. The rest of the investment came in equity. That’s why the U.S. owns 61% of GM. The taxpayers will only get all of their money back once GM launches an initial public stock offering and if the Feds can eventually sell the stock at a price fat enough to recoup the rest of the investment.

How they paid back the initial loan is the issue it seems.

[Guibo]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

ONE LAST TIME.
Straight from the man's mouth: [insert same omission BS as before]
Show me where it says that the GM owes the government ANYTHING more than the $6.7B loan.

The escrow account was under government control because early on they didn't want GM's execs spending it as they pleased. That was the companies largest shareholder (the government) exercising some control over its investment. That doesn't mean that the money was going to be repaid.

It says it right from your own link:
"So, where will they get the money?
GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson: General Motors currently has $13.4 billion dollars in a restricted cash account, known as a Debtor-in-possession (DIP), which means that the company has to get approval from the UST for utilizing that money."

This is also from the same man's mouth:
"Bloom said U.S. officials could revisit the question of the timing of a share sale in June when they consider whether to allow the automaker to have continued access to an escrow account with $13 billion left over from its bankruptcy."

From the GAO:
"GM is also subject to additional reporting requirements related to the reserve portion of its loan from Treasury that is being held in escrow.
Of the $30.1 billion that Treasury provided to GM at its
bankruptcy filing, $16.4 billion was held in escrow to be accessed by
GM on an as-needed basis with the consent of Treasury."
http://www.gao.gov/htext/d10151.html

This is not the money that was granted under Bush. That money was absorbed in the equity swap.

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

They aren't dipping into one bailout account to repay another one.

Actually, they are. TARP's Inspector General says so.
In testimony before the Senate: "we need to be a little bit cautious about that because the way that that payment’s going to be made is drawing down an equity facility of other TARP money...we should caution that it’s not necessarily being generated out of earnings, but out of other TARP funds."
In an interview with Neil Cavuto: "I don’t think we should exaggerate it too much, when we remember where — the source of this money is just other TARP money."

Interview with GM Vice Chairman, Stephen Girsky:
"Question: Are you just paying the government back with government money?
Mr. Girsky: Well listen, that is in effect true, but a year ago nobody thought we’d be able to pay this back"

We have the both the government and GM execs saying that GM did in fact dip into one bailout account to pay another. GM's Girsky admits right there that it is government money, not GM's money. Are you saying Girsky doesn't know what he's talking about?

Funny thing is, once GM has repaid the loan portion from this escrow account, any remaining balance is theirs to keep forever. It becomes unrestriced; ie, has nothing to do with the equity stake. GM has effected the mechanism by which they no longer have to repay several billions of dollars of this escrow loan. The taxpayer just got reamed and it was officially sanctioned.

[jeremyc74]

Originally Posted by Guibo

It says it right from your own link:
"So, where will they get the money?
GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson: General Motors currently has $13.4 billion dollars in a restricted cash account, known as a Debtor-in-possession (DIP), which means that the company has to get approval from the UST for utilizing that money."

This is also from the same man's mouth:
"Bloom said U.S. officials could revisit the question of the timing of a share sale in June when they consider whether to allow the automaker to have continued access to an escrow account with $13 billion left over from its bankruptcy."

From the GAO:
"GM is also subject to additional reporting requirements related to the reserve portion of its loan from Treasury that is being held in escrow.
Of the $30.1 billion that Treasury provided to GM at its
bankruptcy filing, $16.4 billion was held in escrow to be accessed by
GM on an as-needed basis with the consent of Treasury."
http://www.gao.gov/htext/d10151.html

This is not the money that was granted under Bush. That money was absorbed in the equity swap.

So you're saying there was another loan given that you can't seem to find solid evidence of?

Here's the complete breakdown straight from the link you posted:

Company: General Motors;
Description of funding: Loans to GM for general business purposes and
restructuring;
Authorized amount: $49.5;
Repayments of principal: 0;
Interest and dividend payments: $0.168;
Amount and form of future repayments: A total of $6.7 billion will be
repaid as a term loan. Treasury also received $2.1 billion in preferred
stock, and 60.8 percent equity in the new GM. Treasury also has $986
million debt in the old GM, which it does not expect to be repaid.

Company: General Motors;
Description of funding: Supplier Support Program loan;
Authorized amount: $2.5;
Repayments of principal: 0;
Interest and dividend payments: $0.004;
Amount and form of future repayments: Amounts provided are due to be
repaid by April 2010.

Company: General Motors;
Description of funding: Warranty Commitment Program loan;
Authorized amount: Company: $0.361;
Repayments of principal: $0.361;
Interest and dividend payments: 0;
Amount and form of future repayments: All funds have been repaid.

Company: General Motors;
Description of funding: Loan to participate in GMAC rights offering;
Authorized amount: $0.884;
Repayments of principal: 0;
Interest and dividend payments: $0.009;
Amount and form of future repayments: Treasury exchanged this loan for
a portion of GM's equity in GMAC. As a result, Treasury holds a 35.4
percent common equity interest in GMAC. The GM loan was terminated but
GM paid $9 million in interest on the loan to participate in GMAC
rights offering before the loan was terminated.

Company: General Motors;
Description of funding: Total;
Authorized amount: $53.24;
Repayments of principal: $0.36;
Interest and dividend payments: $0.18.

Where's this restricted escrow account that's supposed to be paid back? Point it out in that breakdown, or admit you can't find it.

I'll tell you where it's at....it's GONE. It was converted to equity during the formation of the new company, and it belongs to GM.

Originally Posted by Guibo

It

Actually, they are. TARP's Inspector General says so.
In testimony before the Senate: "we need to be a little bit cautious about that because the way that that payment’s going to be made is drawing down an equity facility of other TARP money...we should caution that it’s not necessarily being generated out of earnings, but out of other TARP funds."
In an interview with Neil Cavuto: "I don’t think we should exaggerate it too much, when we remember where — the source of this money is just other TARP money."

Interview with GM Vice Chairman, Stephen Girsky:
"Question: Are you just paying the government back with government money?
Mr. Girsky: Well listen, that is in effect true, but a year ago nobody thought we’d be able to pay this back"

We have the both the government and GM execs saying that GM did in fact dip into one bailout account to pay another. GM's Girsky admits right there that it is government money, not GM's money. Are you saying Girsky doesn't know what he's talking about?

Funny thing is, once GM has repaid the loan portion from this escrow account, any remaining balance is theirs to keep forever. It becomes unrestriced; ie, has nothing to do with the equity stake. GM has effected the mechanism by which they no longer have to repay several billions of dollars of this escrow loan. The taxpayer just got reamed and it was officially sanctioned.

All of GM's money was TARP money. Not all TARP money given to them was expected to be returned. The taxpayers got a stake in the company in return for a portion of that money, and that's what they're talking about here.

The accustation that GM repaid the loan with money from another loan is simply and clearly untrue. They repaid it using money that was given to the company in exchange for equity. It will not be returned and they can spend it however they like.

[ChrisV]

Going back to this for a moment...

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

A public power delivery design is one thing and frankly quite simple however we are no where near ready for a mass rollout of inexpensive electric cars until we find find a way to produce clean power in abundance and cost effectively.

Southern California Edison (SCE) estimates that it has enough off-peak capacity to refuel up to 2 million cars, 25 percent of the area's automobiles.

The Electric Power Resource Institute (EPRI) estimates that this country has the ability to support 50 million EVs without building any more power plants. Another study puts this number closer to 20 million.

Now, while that number is nowhere near the replacement of the entire US poulation of registered cars (right around 200 million) you have to remember this... How many electric cars can a company make and sell annually?

Even at max production capacity, it would take every manufacturer almost 30 years to replace all the gasoline cars with electrics. And if you add in churn from people replacing older electrics with new ones during that time, plus wrecked ones, it would take even longer. With only a few manufacturrs making only a few models, like the Leaf or Volt, it could take a decade or longer just to sell enough cars to even come close to the capacity of JUST California. So even with a "mass rollout" of electric cars, there is no way to sell enough cars to be an issue.

There is simply no physical way to make and sell enough cars quick enough to overload any grid in existence. Worrying that the grid as it stands now couldn't handle switching everyone over to electric en masse is simply misplaced due to the shear scale of how many cars would need to be produced and sold to cause a problem. It's simply a non-argument and people simply need to stop bringing it up. It's less than irrelevant.

[Guibo]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

So you're saying there was another loan given that you can't seem to find solid evidence of?

I'll tell you where it's at....it's GONE. It was converted to equity during the formation of the new company, and it belongs to GM.

It's included in the $30.1B loan package as was previously noted. (Look several posts back.)
The solid evidence is:
1) TARP's SIG testifying before the Senate, and in official document to Treasury
2) GM's own accounting mentioning escrow
3) Ron Bloom mentioning the escrow account

It's not gone when GAO and TARP are saying GM continued to draw it down months after the equity swap, and they still had the option of using it to repay the pure loan (which they eventually did).

GM's own Vice Chairman admits it was government money, not GM's. When you withdraw your money from a bank, do you need Treasury's consent before you can use it? After you use it, do you have to report to Treasury what you spent it on?
If the money came from equity, how is the backing for that equity still there? Are you telling me that if GM borrowed $50B from taxpayers and $25B was pure loan, and the rest was swapped for equity, GM could use all of that equity (provided by taxpayers) to settle the pure loan and simply say "You'll get your money back when we sell the stock"? What is backing the stocks that they would then be selling?

[jeremyc74]

Originally Posted by Guibo

It's included in the $30.1B loan package as was previously noted. (Look several posts back.)
The solid evidence is:
1) TARP's SIG testifying before the Senate, and in official document to Treasury
2) GM's own accounting mentioning escrow
3) Ron Bloom mentioning the escrow account

It's not gone when GAO and TARP are saying GM continued to draw it down months after the equity swap, and they still had the option of using it to repay the pure loan (which they eventually did).

GM's own Vice Chairman admits it was government money, not GM's. When you withdraw your money from a bank, do you need Treasury's consent before you can use it? After you use it, do you have to report to Treasury what you spent it on?
If the money came from equity, how is the backing for that equity still there? Are you telling me that if GM borrowed $50B from taxpayers and $25B was pure loan, and the rest was swapped for equity, GM could use all of that equity (provided by taxpayers) to settle the pure loan and simply say "You'll get your money back when we sell the stock"? What is backing the stocks that they would then be selling?

There is no $30b loan. The monies owed are listed in very clear terms, straight from your link.

There was $6B that was treated as a loan and is what was repaid, and EVERYTHING ELSE IS EQUITY. The loans that were made early on were converted to the equity stake when the new company was formed, and you need to acknowledge that.

This has been presented to you half a dozen times at this point, and from several different sources INCLUDING YOUR OWN.

Either show where this "loan" came from in that GAO report, or just man up and admit that you can't. You're going in fucking circles with this, and you're refusing to accept the very clear and simple breakdown of what was owed even when it comes from your own damn source.

There are three sets of money here.

A - The 6B loan that was repaid
B - The prefered stock
C - The common stock

And that's the damn end of it. I can't make it any simpler for you.

[Guibo]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

There is no $30b loan. The monies owed are listed in very clear terms, straight from your link.

Either show where this "loan" came from in that GAO report, or just man up and admit that you can't.

Straight from my link:
"Description of funding: Loans to GM after bankruptcy;
Treasury investment: $30.1."

The GAO report also spelled it out:
"GM is also subject to additional reporting requirements related to the reserve portion of its loan from Treasury that is being held in escrow.
Of the $30.1 billion that Treasury provided to GM at its bankruptcy filing, $16.4 billion was held in escrow to be accessed by GM on an as-needed basis with the consent of Treasury. As of October 5, 2009, GM had requested and received $3 billion from the escrow account."

The escrow funds are included in the Obama loan program. Even if you want to call the rest of it equity, it's still money loaned to them. They can't keep it forever.

Like I said, if they are using this equity to pay of the loan as you are saying, how do they have the same cash to back those shares, the value of which was used to repay the loan?? Can they really borrow $50B, allocate half to shares in the company, and then use the values of those share to pay off the loan?

Instead of going around in circles, why don't you explain how they're going to back those shares if they've used the money invested in backing it for the purpose of repaying the loan?

When you withdraw your money from the bank, do you have to have authorization from Treasury? Do you have to document how you spent your money to Treasury? These are very simple questions that most people should have absolutely no problem answering.

The simple fact is, we have government and GM officials admitting it's taxpayer-funded TARP money, government money in an escrow account from which GM drew to repay the loan.