• Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • News
  • Reviews
  • Features
  • Editorials
  • Long Term Tests
  • Video

GM, US Treasury Butt Heads On U.S. Ownership of Shares

Chris Haak/17 Sep, 12/977/0
EditorialsNews

Who wants to buy a car from Government Motors?  Apparently, not as many people as would prefer to buy one from General Motors.  That’s the argument that GM has attempted to convey to Treasury officials in recent weeks.  It seems that GM is tired of its association with the controversial TARP/auto industry bailout, and feels that any continued ownership by the U.S. government is acting as a drag on its reputation, and therefore its sales.

In contrast, the Treasury Department (which has the responsibility of deciding when to sell its GM holdings, and how much of them to sell) is trying to balance what are right now competing goals of exiting government ownership of GM and maximizing the amount of money returned to taxpayers.  (Since we’re talking about a loss at GM’s current $24.14 price of about $15 billion on the company’s bailout, perhaps ‘minimizing losses absorbed by taxpayers’ should replace ‘maximizing the amount of money returned to taxpayers.’)

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney stated a few months ago that he’d immediately sell the government’s stake in GM, losses be damned.  And why wouldn’t he?  Doing so allows him to draw a line under the TARP era (well, at least the TARP in the auto industry era, with the Treasury still holding a stake in about 300 mostly smaller banks and a chunk of AIG) and gives him the ability to lay the blame for the $15 billion loss on his predecessors, both Bush and Obama.  If Romney held onto GM for a while, trying to time the market (always a dangerous game, particularly with GM’s Europe-sized problems) and GM shares fell further, he’d be criticized for not selling when he could have.  If he sells and GM shares rise, he could just say that he didn’t want the government owning a private enterprise and that the government shouldn’t have been in the business of owning car companies in the first place.

GM’s shares would have to more than double their current price in order for the government to break even on its “investment” in GM.  The breakeven price is about $53.00 per share.  According to “people familiar with the situation” cited by The Wall Street Journal, Treasury would be willing to sell with the price in the $30s, but not as low as its current level.

Aside from the perception and possible issue with lost sales, GM is also still shackled by executive pay restrictions that make it challenging for the company to attract and retain top-tier talent.  A $500,000 base salary cap may sound like a ton of money to the 99 percenters (believe me, it does to me), but when a competitor is offering 50% more, or 100% more, plus stock options and large cash bonuses, you’d never work at GM for the money when you can set yourself, children, and grandchildren up nicely with a much more lucrative career somewhere else.

GM’s proposal to Treasury was to repurchase roughly 40 percent of the 500 million shares that the government owns (or about 200 million shares).  Had Treasury said yes, its stake in GM would have fallen below 16 percent (from 26.5 percent currently).

There are a few ways out of this scenario.  GM can wait until after the election, and if Romney wins, they’re set, because he already said he’d sell the stake right away.  I suspect that part of the reason Treasury doesn’t want to set the loss in stone is for political reasons; if Obama wins, they might still sell the shares regardless of price, because Obama won’t have to worry about being re-elected again.

If Obama wins in November and doesn’t sell the shares at any price, GM can fix its European operations (which will cost billions, not to mention taking years) and continue growing sales elsewhere in the world, and hope that the stock price gets into the $30s, and that it can talk Treasury into selling its shares.

The last alternative is for GM to agree to a repurchase price with Treasury that is a premium over the current trading price of the stock.  If the company feels that it’s worth the investment to pay, say, a $6 premium per share to give the Treasury $30 per share just to get the “Government Motors” monkey off its back, Treasury might be willing to talk.  GM’s other shareholders may not like such a move very much, particularly those who bought in at or above the $33 IPO price and would love to get a $6 premium.

If GM went down this “premium repurchase” route, it would have to worry about burning its cash (the company has about $33 billion in cash, and supposedly needs $20 billion in order to keep operating; the 200 million share repurchase originally proposed would cost about $5 billion at the current share price, or about $6 billion with a premium thrown in).  Given its current cash position (and serious cash needs in Europe in the coming years), GM could not afford to repurchase much more than 40% of the government’s remaining stake, so you can forget about GM just buying out Treasury’s entire stake, with or without a premium.

With all of the complexities and competing priorities swirling around this situation, I wonder how much thought went into the exit strategy at the time President Bush and President Obama made the decision to bail out GM and Chrysler.  My guess would be not very much, though to be fair, liquidation of either or both companies (and particularly GM) would have been catastrophic to the economy.  But now it’s time to pick up the pieces and get this company back into the hands of only private shareholders.

bailoutGMGovernment MotorsObamaRomneyTARPTreasury

Mark Fields Should Send a Thank-You Note to Alan...

17 Sep, 12

Will Fiat’s World Headquarters Move to...

17 Sep, 12

Related Posts

Long Term Tests

Long Term Wrap-Up: 2013 Toyota Sienna XLE AWD

GM Cruise
News

Honda Will Invest $2.75B in GM’s Cruise...

Rotary Engine
News

Mazda is Bringing Back the Rotary Engine

Chris Haak
Chris is FMA's Founder and Editor-in-Chief. He has a lifelong love of everything automotive, having grown up as the son of a car dealer. Chris spent the past decade writing for, managing, and eventually owning Autosavant before selling the site to pursue other interests. A married father of two sons, Chris is also in the process of indoctrinating them into the world of cars and trucks.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Recent Posts

  • Long Term Wrap-Up: 2013 Toyota Sienna XLE AWD
  • Honda Will Invest $2.75B in GM’s Cruise Autonomous-Vehicle Unit
  • Mazda is Bringing Back the Rotary Engine
  • Goodbye, NAFTA. Hello NAFTA 2.0 (USMCA)
  • I May Have Been the First to Put BF Goodrich KO2s on an Audi Q5

Recent Comments

  • Jon on I May Have Been the First to Put BF Goodrich KO2s on an Audi Q5
  • chrisadm on I May Have Been the First to Put BF Goodrich KO2s on an Audi Q5
  • Christopher Smith on I May Have Been the First to Put BF Goodrich KO2s on an Audi Q5
  • Christopher Smith on I May Have Been the First to Put BF Goodrich KO2s on an Audi Q5
  • Chris Haak on I May Have Been the First to Put BF Goodrich KO2s on an Audi Q5

Advert

Instagram

Archives

  • March 2020
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • April 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007

  • Home
  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy