Chrysler Financial Snubs Fed Bailout Bucks Over Pay Limits

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

The Washington Post reports that Chrysler Financial turned down $750 million worth of federal loans to avoid executive pay limits. Surprised? Me neither. And that’s not a whole lot of money in the grand scheme of things ($1.5 billion already “loaned” to Chrysler Financial, $6 billion for GMAC, $7 billion for Chrysler, $17.4 billion for GM, $5.5 billion for suppliers). Anyway, the WaPo sure has its dander up. “In forgoing the loan, Chrysler Financial opted to use more expensive financing from private banks, adding to the burdens of the already fragile automaker and its financing company . . . The company’s decision comes amid a firestorm on Capitol Hill and elsewhere over the lavish pay of executives at companies being aided by government money. The uproar has made companies skittish about taking federal aid and hindered the Obama administration’s effort to revive lending by replenishing the coffers of the nation’s financial firms.” Ah. OK. So, NOT accepting federal support is bad. Welcome to Bailout Nation. And its media dupes, like Autoblog, who called ChryCo execs’ explanation (after the jump) “disingenuous.” Folks, the LESS taxpayer-funding in the US auto industry, the better. Period.

“Chrysler Financial has determined that it has adequate private capital funding to cover the short-term needs of our dealers and customers and as such no additional TARP funding is necessary at this time,” the company said in its statement.

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments
Join the conversation
4 of 9 comments
  • Tommy Yoo Tommy Yoo on Apr 21, 2009

    @Robert Schwartz: I keep seeing the "Employee Pricing Plus Plus Plus Plus Really Plus" commercials on television where they announce "[this promotion] is in its final month!" I keep thinking it's not the final month of the promotion, it's the final month of Chrysler's existence.

  • Jaywalker Jaywalker on Apr 21, 2009

    I'd like to hear more about the "private banks" that think lending C7hrysler any money at all is a good use of their funds. Did they need investment losses for tax purposes?

  • Mr. Sparky Mr. Sparky on Apr 21, 2009

    Of course they don't want TARP money that would limit there bonuses since it's the last one's they'll ever see (if they ever do see them in liquidation).

  • Landcrusher Landcrusher on Apr 21, 2009

    What I want to know about are all the families who have been, and may soon be, on assistance because of all the intrusions into the labor market in Michigan. Oh, I guess we will never here about that in the news.

Next