It's all right there in the article you posted. You did read it rather than posting the first hit that Google provided you, right? Surely, you don't think the Government is just going to give those shares back for free. Otherwise there would be no need for that to "take some time", other than the fact that Uncle Sam wants to hold on until he makes a profit, or wants to keep control of the company. I got less problem with them making a profit off it, but say that's what you're doing from the get-go. Also, they shouldn't go announcing that GM has paid back in full, just to make the bailout not look like a government takeover.
yeah i read it, and i understand that aspect, but what i'm trying to figure out is the window, and how this effects the taxpayer.
I figured you did read it, just giving you a hard time... Well, I'd suspect taxpayers will have very little to do with that exchange when and if it ever happens, which is why the left that time-frame so open. The government is looking at this as an investment. They want to make a profit on that money, so they'll hold those shares until they get back to 75 or 100 bucks a share. That money will long have been spent by the government before they ever get it back (it's spent now). If it never reaches that price, they'll hold it indefinitely. That's what they mean by "it will take some time".. in other words, "We're not getting out of this unless it's damn well worth it to us to do so."... You know, kind of like the evil greedy rich people do... :wink:
i remember libby did this (and turned down bonus) but his successor did too? last name ben--something. i thought i remembered a stink about him taking millions salary, bonus, stock, etc? maybe he turned it down after the pub. i'll have to check.
