Commentary on the economy, the markets, and business

Surprise! GM and Chrysler won't be able to pay us back

Big shocker! General Motors and Chrysler probably won't be able to pay back all those loans we've extended them! From the just-released September report of the Congressional Oversight Panel assigned with keeping an eye on the Troubled Asset Relief Program:

Although taxpayers may recover some portion of their investment in Chrysler and GM, it is unlikely they will recover the entire amount. The estimates of loss vary. Treasury estimates that approximately $23 billion of the initial loans made will be subject to much lower recoveries. Approximately $5.4 billion of the loans extended to the old Chrysler company are highly unlikely to be recovered. The Congressional Budget Office earlier calculated a subsidy rate of 73 percent for all automotive industry support under TARP and recently raised its estimate of the cost of that assistance by approximately $40 billion over the previous estimate.

This comes as we've been getting mostly good news about the money Treasury extended to banks last fall. Even Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac might, if we gave them long enough, be able to pay us back eventually.

Why the difference between financial firms and automakers? Part of it is just that GM and Chrysler were struggling companies that had been losing market share for years before the financial crisis hit, while U.S.-based financial firms were doing quite well. The banks simply aren't in the same competitive bind GM and Chrysler are. But another really important part of the equation is that it's pretty easy for the Federal Reserve to create conditions that allow banks to make lots of money—mainly by keeping short-term interest rates really low—whereas doing that for the automakers is much harder. Cash for Clunkers was definitely a gift to the auto industry, but compared with all the Fed's lending programs it wasn't very big, and it benefited other companies  more than it did GM and Chrysler. The only way to guarantee GM and Chrysler's profits would probably be to impose a big surcharge on cars made by other manufacturers. Which ain't going to happen. Basically, it's politically easier in the U.S. to extend corporate welfare to banks than to carmakers. Strange, no?

Does this mean the GM/Chrysler bailout was a failure? Well, as the Elizabeth-Warren-led COP points out again and again in the report, it depends on what the Administration was trying to accomplish:

Was the primary purpose of this intervention to provide bridge funding to the automakers, with the expectation that these were viable companies that could eventually repay taxpayers in full? Was it to prevent an uncontrolled liquidation because such a prospect posed a systemic risk to the financial markets and the overall economy? Was it to advance broader policy goals, such as improving fuel efficiency or sustaining American manufacturing and jobs? Or was it some combination of these? To date, Treasury‘s public statements provide little clarity, as each of these objectives has been cited at various times.

Sure seems like that second reason—"to prevent an uncontrolled liquidation"—is the one Treasury ought to be playing up. Because by that standard the bailout has been a spectacular success.

  • Print
  • Comment
Comments (11)
Post a Comment »
  • 1

    Justin, please don't get me started on our unconscionably disfunctional domestic auto industry. I can write many thousands of words condemning it. I think that the best I can say is that Detroit needs to be torn down and rebuilt. Really.

  • 2

    If they had allowed GM and Chrysler to fail, then everyone would be screaming about how the administration was responsible for destroying an industry and putting millions of Americans out of work. It was a lose-lose situation. Except the administration made the right call in not making a bad situation into a complete catastrophe. They saw the financial hurricane and flood coming and were able to head it off. Otherwise, the destruction would have been devastating for the country for years to come.

  • 3

    After decades of refinement, our domestic auto industry built the ideal companies to compete in the US in the 1950s. Having achieved perfection in their eyes, they labored mightily to keep it just as it was.

  • 4

    [...] So why have several financial firms been able to repay TARP, but the auto makers can’t? Part of the reason is GM and Chrysler were losing market share before the crisis ensued, whereas financial firms were doing well, Time’s Curious Capitalist blogger Justin Fox says.  [...]

  • 5

    With the U.S. economy struggling, we need policies that will spark immediate business investment and encourage capital investment. We must continue to create overseas opportunities for American companies and chip away at the deficit by taking steps to control wasteful governmental spending. Read and learn about policies that need attention at
    http://www.friendsoftheuschamber.com/issues/index.cfm?ID=104 .

  • 6

    I am not surprised at all that the decdadent American Big Business elite screw over America yet again. The American tax payer always seems to be getting the brunt. Who bails out the American middle class family?
    While I agree that there are other milesticks for success other then full remimbursement, I think this news will rub sulfuric acid in an otherwise already sore wound. This reminds me about a story I read in the Balenyata, where ancient forms of capitalism ran amok under the guise of "free Markets". The Balenyata focuses on economic injustice, especially where the overwhemling majority of the wealth being shared by a decreasing minority of people. If the Big three auto makers followed the precepts of The Balenyata: that is economic justice, forsight, hard work and egilataranism, then these corporations, much like the rest of Big Business America, would not be in the shape they are in.

  • 7

    This is the best news of the day. Every dollar GM and Chrysler pay back is a dollar removed from the economy -- exactly the opposite of what the stimulus payments are supposed to accomplish.

    And despite the frequent (and incorrect) use of the words, "taxpayers' money," not one cent of any payback would go into any taxpayer's pocket. There is zero relationship between deficits and tax rates, which generally have declined in the past 50 years -- despite many large deficits and even a few surpluses. Taxes are political, not financial, decisions.

    To answer the question: What was the purpose of the bailout? The purpose was to pump money into the economy and to provide jobs short term and long term. That it did.

    So taxpayers, stop grumbling. Less payback means more jobs and more money in our money-starved economy.

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
    rmmadvertising@yahoo.com
    http://www.rodgermitchell.com

  • 8

    Everyone is ignoring the 500 lbm gorilla in the room!!!!! the economic and political ramifications from the legal precedent set buy the bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler. In plain words: "If you loan money to a struggling company that has a heavily Unionized workforce, you're contractual rights are secondary to Union members wants."

    Now lets enter the dangerous world of LOGIC. As the world becomes even more global, heavily unionized companies are going to find it harder and harder to compete on labor cost, putting them at a disadvantage over the next decade. Not to mention all the restructuring that is going to emerge out of this recession. Put yourself in the shoes of an investor, one of these companies (Ford, Boeing, Delta) is in financial difficulty and is trying to borrow money. Knowing that if this company goes under, depending on the political climate, you're rights of recovery are very ambiguous ...... you will demand a credit card like unsecured interest rate of 15-30% or not buy there bonds at all. In a nutshell, there isn't going to be any reasonable funding from the private market, not even private equity or hedge funds. So what happens then? the government is going to have to step in and do the same thing, force big bank to loan them the money and/or government take over .... if you think this is fantasy, check the history books about what happen in the aftermath of Germany and England taking over car companies.

  • 9

    Read that first sentence: "General Motors and Chrysler probably won't be able to pay back all those loans we've extended them!"

    "Them" is business that supplies us with jobs, salaries and the products/services we love to own. "We" is the government that takes our tax money and reliably is crooked and inefficient.

    Are "we" really the government? Do GM and Chrysler really owe us money. I looked in my list of assets, and I couldn't find an accounts receivable from GM and Chrysler. And when these companies pay back, will I really receive any of the money?

    This whole idea of "them" being business and "we" being the federal government is so outrageously backward, it would be laughable if it weren't so sad.

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
    http://www.rodgermitchell.com

  • 10

    [...] Bailout Money Goes to Die - Rick Newman (usnews.com)"Where Bailout Money Goes to Die" Congressional Oversight Panel says taxpayers won't get their money back on General Motors and Chrysl... "Surprise! GM and Chrysler won't be able to pay us back" Nobama and the dems want GM to [...]

  • 11

    [...] Contrast that with our other two American car companies: General Motors and Chrysler probably won’t be able to pay back all those loans we’ve extended them! From the just-released September report of the Congressional Oversight Panel assigned with keeping an eye on the Troubled Asset Relief Program. [...]

Add Your Comment:

You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Curious Capitalist Daily E-mail

Get e-mail updates from TIME's The Curious Capitalist in your inbox and never miss a day.

Quotes of the Day »

Get & Share
LORI HAAS, whose daughter was wounded in the 2007 Virginia Tech shootings, on a new report finding that officials warned their families more than an hour and a half before the rest of the campus and released locked-down students who were later killed