GM's CEO Rejects Repaying Feds for Bailout Losses 356
PolygamousRanchKid writes with news that GM's outgoing CEO doesn't agree with the National Law and Policy Center's call for GM to repay the loss made by the Treasury from their bailout. From the article: "GM CEO Dan Akerson rejects any suggestion that the company should compensate for the losses. He says Treasury officials took the same risk assumed by anyone who purchases stock.
Akerson said that GM repaid all the debt issued by the government beginning in December 2008 when George W. Bush was still president and extending into the first year of Barack Obama's presidency. He added that it was the Treasury's decision ... to take an ownership stake in the form of company shares."
Pay up (Score:0, Informative)
Pay up you fucking bum!
Re:Welcome to the stock market (Score:4, Informative)
The government did not issue a loan, they bought a large amount of stock.
a) Would they have purchased that stock if it hadn't been a "bailout"?
b) A "loan" would have left them with nothing if the company had tanked. A stock purchase would entitle them to some company assets to sell off, this is what most people call "security".
Re:Welcome to the stock market (Score:5, Informative)
You are wrong.
a) As a "bailout", the fed took ownership of the company through stock. How shall GM pay their owners? From what? Shall they take a loan to pay them? From whom? Should they only pay the fed or the other owners as well?
b) If the company had tanked, its assets would be liquidated and payed out to the creditors. Not the owners, you see, because they are the ones who failed. They are left with nothing when the company fails