IDBillzFan Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Another "unintended consequence" of the governments actions of bailing out GM. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=awL36kf4vk5c This is the gist of it: Ford Motor Co. is telling lawmakers it is concerned that federal support for GMAC LLC is giving the rival auto lender cheaper borrowing costs. Ford has been lobbying lawmakers for a level playing field as it competes against General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, which are slashing costs through U.S.-sponsored bankruptcies, according to three people familiar with the effort. In recent competing bond offerings, Ford paid $107.5 million more than GMAC for every $1 billion it borrowed, according to Bloomberg data. Reward and enable the companies with failed business models. Genius!! The only thing more ridiculous than this is to consider that GM and Chrysler have spent millions of bailout money lobbying the government. It's the ultimate money laundering scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Another "unintended consequence" of the governments actions of bailing out GM. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=awL36kf4vk5c This is the gist of it: Ford Motor Co. is telling lawmakers it is concerned that federal support for GMAC LLC is giving the rival auto lender cheaper borrowing costs. Ford has been lobbying lawmakers for a level playing field as it competes against General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, which are slashing costs through U.S.-sponsored bankruptcies, according to three people familiar with the effort. In recent competing bond offerings, Ford paid $107.5 million more than GMAC for every $1 billion it borrowed, according to Bloomberg data. Reward and enable the companies with failed business models. Genius!! GM and GMAC are not the same company. Related, in that GM's a minority owner, but not the same. "The government bailing out GM" and "The government bailing out GMAC" are not the same thing. GM's a manufacturer; GMAC is a financing company (that does a lot more than just GM cars). GMAC's probably getting better terms because (and I'm guessing) they hold much larger cash reserves (required by regulation), have a stronger cash flow as a finance company, and have access to TARP funds. In other words, GMAC's in a completely different industry than Ford. Ford doesn't like it? They can go start their own financing company. Though I also have to ask: what moron outside the US and Canadian governments, after both governments !@#$ed over the senior creditors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 GM and GMAC are not the same company. Related, in that GM's a minority owner, but not the same. "The government bailing out GM" and "The government bailing out GMAC" are not the same thing. GM's a manufacturer; GMAC is a financing company (that does a lot more than just GM cars). GMAC's probably getting better terms because (and I'm guessing) they hold much larger cash reserves (required by regulation), have a stronger cash flow as a finance company, and have access to TARP funds. In other words, GMAC's in a completely different industry than Ford. Ford doesn't like it? They can go start their own financing company. Though I also have to ask: what moron outside the US and Canadian governments, after both governments !@#$ed over the senior creditors? Last I checked, GM still owns a part of GMAC, and I don't think anyone said they are the same entity, I'm pretty sure most people all ready knew that, also I'm not quite sure where you are going with this, are you implying that GM won't have any sort of an advantage over Ford for financing their vehicles at better rates or have access for more cash for financing? Or that the bond offerings that GMAC, which GM own's a 10% stake of are at a much greater advantage than that of Fords bond offerings, who are paying much higher yields than that of GMAC's? You don't think that plays a role in what Ford's borrowing costs are? The reason why Ford doesn't want to to become a bank holding company is because it would change the logistics of the way their financing company is run. Ford is the sole owner of it's financing arm, if they were to become a bank holding company, they would have to lose control and sell off parts of their financing arm, no longer making them the sole owner. So they have decided to not go this route, and instead they have applied to the government to create an industrial bank subsidiary of Ford Credit, to have more access to FDIC insured deposits, where they wouldn't have to lose control of their financing arm. Which they still havn't been approved of as of yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Last I checked, GM still owns a part of GMAC, and I don't think anyone said they are the same entity, I'm pretty sure most people all ready knew that, also I'm not quite sure where you are going with this, are you implying that GM won't have any sort of an advantage over Ford for financing their vehicles at better rates or have access for more cash for financing? Or that the bond offerings that GMAC, which GM own's a 10% stake of are at a much greater advantage than that of Fords bond offerings, who are paying much higher yields than that of GMAC's? You don't think that plays a role in what Ford's borrowing costs are? I'm not implying there's no advantage, I'm implying that the advantage isn't unfair. Of course GMAC and Ford have different borrowing costs. One's a manufacturer, and one's a financial company. That's exactly my point: what the hell does Ford expect? If they want the same borrowing costs as a finance company...start a friggin' finance company. Don't complain about an uneven playing field because a company in a different industry is subsidized by the government and you're not. And the fact that Ford can even cry "Waaaah! We're not subsidized like a financial company!" and no one twigs to that being even slightly unusual shows how completely cockeyed the management of this bailout has been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 And the fact that Ford can even cry "Waaaah! We're not subsidized like a financial company!" and no one twigs to that being even slightly unusual shows how completely cockeyed the management of this bailout has been. That pretty much is my point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 That pretty much is my point It takes him a Looong time. He reads into a point more than what could keep Conner awake for six hours. Though we love Tom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 (edited) That $60B is buying the government 70% of the new company, which it expects to sell on the market within the next few years to recoup the bailout ("within the next year" is what I heard, but I have a hard time believing that as anything other than a pipe dream). So it's not a 60-year no-interest loan. http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/g-m-offering-could-price-higher-than-expected/ Consider the pipe dreamed (or very close to it) Edited November 16, 2010 by conner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/g-m-offering-could-price-higher-than-expected/ Consider the pipe dreamed (or very close to it) You're telling me that when I said "recoup [...] within the next year", I actually meant "start to recoup within fifteen months", and was therefore wrong? Shut the !@#$ up, idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 I assume this is not a popular topic, because Fox News is not talking about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 I assume this is not a popular topic, because Fox News is not talking about it. Have you been sitting up late-nite watching Fox News? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Have you been sitting up late-nite watching Fox News? Nope. I've just noticed that discussions on this forum tend to mirror Fox News / Drudge almost exactly. So when discussion happens on here, I become aware of what Fox has been talking about lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Nope. I've just noticed that discussions on this forum tend to mirror Fox News / Drudge almost exactly. So when discussion happens on here, I become aware of what Fox has been talking about lately. Come on. Most people are independents here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Come on. Most people are independents here. Actually I'd characterize many of you as nitwits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Actually I'd characterize many of you as nitwits. HAHAHAHA Great response!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Nope. I've just noticed that discussions on this forum tend to mirror Fox News / Drudge almost exactly. How's CNN's coverage? They "all GM IPO, all the time"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Nope. I've just noticed that discussions on this forum tend to mirror Fox News / Drudge almost exactly. So when discussion happens on here, I become aware of what Fox has been talking about lately. Isn't that kind of like saying: As someone who doesn't frequent the gay bar, I can tell you first hand that the conversations here very closely resemble those you would hear there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Nope. I've just noticed that discussions on this forum tend to mirror Fox News / Drudge almost exactly. So when discussion happens on here, I become aware of what Fox has been talking about lately. So do you actually watch Fox News and read Drudge? Or do you rely on others to make up your mind for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Or do you rely on others to make up your mind for you? Like you had to ask Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 Isn't that kind of like saying: As someone who doesn't frequent the gay bar, I can tell you first hand that the conversations here very closely resemble those you would hear there? Exactly. And I'm the one who gets accused of saying what I'm told to say. No one around here ever thinks about anything except what Drudgebreitbartfoxnews tells them to. So do you actually watch Fox News and read Drudge? Or do you rely on others to make up your mind for you? Am I to imply by this post that if I watch FoxNews/Drudge then I would be thinking for myself? This is how your wording makes it sound. Either watch Fox/Drudge or rely on others to make up my mind for me. Yes, ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 Exactly. And I'm the one who gets accused of saying what I'm told to say. No one around here ever thinks about anything except what Drudgebreitbartfoxnews tells them to. No one? Painting with a pretty wide brush there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts