Bailout Watch 560: Feds Set to Bail Out, Nationalize GMAC

by Robert Farago

Published: October 28th, 2009

bailout watch 560 feds set to bail out nationalize gmac

The New York Times reports that the “troubled finance company” known as GMAC is hitting-up Uncle Sam for more, as-yet-unspecified billions. The Gray Lady tells us it’s not a question of “if”, it’s a question of how GMAC and the Treasury can sleaze the deal, so that taxpayers don’t end up owning the company. ‘Cause that would “reignite” the “debate” over the bailouts that have already been given. “GMAC and Treasury Department officials have been locked in negotiations over how to structure the third bailout as it approaches a crucial deadline in early November for shoring up its finances [as a $5.6 billion payment comes due]. The government has injected $12.5 billion into the company and already owns about a 35 percent stake from a broader restructuring of General Motors, its onetime parent.”

The Times seems to forgets the salient fact that the GMAC bailout arrived via an eleventh-hour, Christmas Eve FDIC exemption from banking laws, which allowed GMAC to attach itself to the taxpayer teat. Well, they kinda mention it.

GMAC was one of several firms that sought an emergency conversion into a bank holding company last fall, which qualified it for a host of federal aid programs, including government guarantees of its debt.

To be fair, the paper does point out that GMAC lost $3.9 billion in the last financial quarter. Hey, does anyone remember why GMAC went from GM’s cash cow to a bailout-craving zombie lender and a-rose-by-any-other-name bank called Ally? Something about being up-to-their-eyeballs in the sub-prime meltdown mishegos, methinks. Never mind.

Just for S&Gs, here’s the corporate genesis 411 from formerly GMAC Finance now Ally’s website [sorry, can’t resist]:

We are Ally Bank, built on the foundation of GMAC Financial Services. And with that experience we’ve learned that these times demand change and a new way of doing business. So we’re taking banking in a new direction.

That means talking straight, doing right and being obviously better for our customers.

We’re a bank that values integrity as much as deposits. A bank that will always be open, accountable, and honest. Yes, honest. We won’t deal in half-truths, kindatruths, or truths only buried in fine print. That’s because we don’t have anything to hide. We’re always going to give it to you straight.

Profits they may not have (or may, as they’re using YOUR money to compete), but chutzpah? LOADS. One more factoid: GMAC’s outgoing CEO Alvaro de Molina walked away with $11.6 million. As they sow, so shall they reap. Or is that rape? [thanks to all for the links]

Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 15 comments

Tpandw on Oct 28, 2009

essen: According to the WSJ article on this mess, the government's decision to bail out (for the third time!) GMAC 'reflects the troubled company's importance to the revival of the auto industry.' So in a way it is about manufacturing jobs. That's why this whole bailout thing (and this isn't a political comment--the bailouts began with Bush) was such a slippery slope. Once the feds started bailing out failing auto companies and those companies which support them it became nearly impossible to quit. The only hope is that eventually the market will recover enough for them at least to break even, but I'm afraid that until then the bailouts will continue.

Like Reply
Essen on Oct 28, 2009

tpandw, I hear what you're saying but money is fungible. Let a responsible lender step in.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

Ltcmgm78 It depends on whether or not the union is a help or a hindrance to the manufacturer and workers. A union isn't needed if the manufacturer takes care of its workers.
Honda1 Unions were needed back in the early days, not needed know. There are plenty of rules and regulations and government agencies that keep companies in line. It's just a money grad and nothing more. Fain is a punk!
1995 SC If the necessary number of employees vote to unionize then yes, they should be unionized. That's how it works.
Sobhuza Trooper That Dave Thomas fella sounds like the kind of twit who is oh-so-quick to tell us how easy and fun the bus is for any and all of your personal transportation needs. The time to get to and from the bus stop is never a concern. The time waiting for the bus is never a concern. The time waiting for a connection (if there is one) is never a concern. The weather is never a concern. Whatever you might be carrying or intend to purchase is never a concern. Nope, Boo Cars! Yeah Buses! Buses rule!Needless to say, these twits don't actual take the damn bus.
MaintenanceCosts Nobody here seems to acknowledge that there are multiple use cases for cars.Some people spend all their time driving all over the country and need every mile and minute of time savings. ICE cars are better for them right now.Some people only drive locally and fly when they travel. For them, there's probably a range number that works, and they don't really need more. For the uses for which we use our EV, that would be around 150 miles. The other thing about a low range requirement is it can make 120V charging viable. If you don't drive more than an average of about 40 miles/day, you can probably get enough electrons through a wall outlet. We spent over two years charging our Bolt only through 120V, while our house was getting rebuilt, and never had an issue.Those are extremes. There are all sorts of use cases in between, which probably represent the majority of drivers. For some users, what's needed is more range. But I think for most users, what's needed is better charging. Retrofit apartment garages like Tim's with 240V outlets at every spot. Install more L3 chargers in supermarket parking lots and alongside gas stations. Make chargers that work like Tesla Superchargers as ubiquitous as gas stations, and EV charging will not be an issue for most users.