Chrysler Celebrates "Payback," Acknowledges Outstanding Obligations (Sort Of)

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

Chrysler’s bailout “thank you” event today was long on praise for the redemptive power of its government bailout and short on talk of remaining challenges, but at least one important fact was acknowledged: this highly-touted “payback” was only for 85% of the money loaned to Chrysler during the bailout period. Although, to be perfectly accurate, it wasn’t exactly Chrysler who acknowledged the outstanding obligation [the firm avoids any such nuance in its release], as CEO Sergio Marchionne simply stated that

We received confirmation this morning at 10.13 am from Citigroup that Chrysler Group repaid, with interest, by wire transfer to the United States Treasury and by bank transfer to the Canadian government, every penny that had been loaned less than two years ago. [Emphasis added]

That last bit was the important part… as in, the part that was most often repeated in Chrysler’s presentation and in subsequent media reports. But it’s not the whole story…

It was ultimately up to Ron Bloom, the White House’s defacto “car czar” to admit that Chrysler’s “payback” amounted to only 85% of the “total money loaned to Chrysler.” That math works out to the conclusion that Chrysler failed to pay back about $2b… which is as technically true as Marchionne’s “every penny that had been loaned less than two years ago” line. It does, however, fail to account ( again) for the $1.9b Debtor-in-Posession “loan” which financed Chrysler during bankruptcy and was conveniently left to die with the remains of “Old Chrysler.” Nor does it account for the $1.5b loaned to Chrysler’s suppliers to keep them afloat amidst the bailout chaos. Meanwhile, the $1.9b Chrysler that Bloom admits Chrysler still “owes” the taxpayers is covered by a 6.6% stake in Chrysler’s equity, which isn’t likely to cover that loss when Chrysler eventually launches an IPO… and the DIP loan and supplier aid are irrevocably lost. According to the Treasury’s release:

Treasury committed a total of $12.5 billion to Chrysler under TARP’s Automotive Industry Financing Program (AIFP). With today’s transaction, Chrysler has returned more than $10.6 billion of that amount to taxpayers through principal repayments, interest, and cancelled commitments. Treasury continues to hold a 6.6 percent common equity stake in Chrysler. As previously stated, however, Treasury is unlikely to fully recover its remaining outstanding investment of $1.9 billion in Chrysler.

Add up the outstanding “bridge loan” loss of $1.9b, the “Old Chrysler” DIP loan loss of $1.9b and the supplier aid loss of $1.5b, and the taxpayer’s loss on Chrysler looks to be closer to $5.3b. Add $3.4b of that into the $12.5b bailout bill that Treasury acknowledges, and the total return on the Chrysler bailout appears to be more like 66%, not 85%. Which is pretty damn far from “every penny” no matter how you cut it.

No matter, though, since nobody else in the media seems to want to dig back through the financial confusion of 2008-09, and is dutifully reporting the “full payback” line. And the message is playing out in a predictably partisan manner as well, with Democrats taking credit for, and goading bailout opponents with the “full payback” not-quite-truth. The only media mitigation of the celebratory atmosphere at this point appears to be a piece at the DetN’s themichiganview.com site, which argues

But there is one inconvenient truth you won’t hear at the Sterling Heights, Mich. ceremony: Chrysler wouldn’t be here had it not defied its green White House masters. Chrysler’s return to profitability is a direct result of the fabulous success of its SUVs.

Otherwise, it’s all celebration all the time. Which is understandable: many (myself included) really didn’t think Chrysler would make it through the last year. So Chrysler and its fans and political bedfellows can be forgiven for a little cheering… it’s just that taxpayers still deserve a full and transparent accounting of “every penny” (to borrow a phrase) that actually went into Chrysler, not just “loans made in the last two years” or “loans made by the Obama Administration” or other weasel-wordings employed to make the bailout seem more successful than it is. Though bailout supporters will doubtless argue that “it doesn’t matter” because Chrysler is alive today and “that’s what matters,” this doesn’t justify a lack of transparency. In fact, if the bailout was successful because GM and Chrysler survived, that’s all the more reason to not fear the truth about what the bailout actually cost.


Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 21 comments
  • Pgcooldad Pgcooldad on May 25, 2011

    Isn't Daimler and Cerberus accountable for any of this? They owned the company. Oh yes, it went belly up. What emerged was this new company that is managed by Fiat, and it just paid back loans made to it. Aid given to suppliers? Gosh, I wish we could recoup 1/1000 of aid given to foreign countries. Why is this even being thrown into your calculations?

  • Disaster Disaster on Sep 07, 2011

    What irks me is, besides the money we all lost, through gov't "loans", there is the money a crapload of people lost when the original stock went to zero. Any plans on paying back those shareholders? I don't think bragging should happen after a company (or person) went bankrupt and shafted people that financed them earlier.

  • Marcr My wife and I mostly work from home (or use public transit), the kid is grown, and we no longer do road trips of more than 150 miles or so. Our one car mostly gets used for local errands and the occasional airport pickup. The first non-Tesla, non-Mini, non-Fiat, non-Kia/Hyundai, non-GM (I do have my biases) small fun-to-drive hatchback EV with 200+ mile range, instrument display behind the wheel where it belongs and actual knobs for oft-used functions for under $35K will get our money. What we really want is a proper 21st century equivalent of the original Honda Civic. The Volvo EX30 is close and may end up being the compromise choice.
  • Mebgardner I test drove a 2023 2.5 Rav4 last year. I passed on it because it was a very noisy interior, and handled poorly on uneven pavement (filled potholes), which Tucson has many. Very little acoustic padding mean you talk loudly above 55 mph. The forums were also talking about how the roof leaks from not properly sealed roof rack holes, and door windows leaking into the lower door interior. I did not stick around to find out if all that was true. No talk about engine troubles though, this is new info to me.
  • Dave Holzman '08 Civic (stick) that I bought used 1/31/12 with 35k on the clock. Now at 159k.It runs as nicely as it did when I bought it. I love the feel of the car. The most expensive replacement was the AC compressor, I think, but something to do with the AC that went at 80k and cost $1300 to replace. It's had more stuff replaced than I expected, but not enough to make me want to ditch a car that I truly enjoy driving.
  • ToolGuy Let's review: I am a poor unsuccessful loser. Any car company which introduced an EV which I could afford would earn my contempt. Of course I would buy it, but I wouldn't respect them. 😉
  • ToolGuy Correct answer is the one that isn't a Honda.
Next