Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ally Financial Failure Jeopardizes Auto Bailout 'Success' (Old GMAC)
National Legal & Policy Center ^ | March 19, 2012 | Mark Modica

Posted on 03/19/2012 11:06:05 AM PDT by jazusamo

Ally ad image

Ally Financial seldom gets mentioned when the auto bailouts are discussed. The company was formerly known as GMAC and the 17 billion dollars that taxpayers sunk into the company was crucial for the perceived success at both General Motors and Chrysler . We now learn that Ally Financial has failed a government stress test and, according to Reuters, "fared by far the worst of 19 banks examined."

Years back, GMAC changed its name to Ally Financial to dissociate itself from GM. Just changing a name can not negate the fact that the $17,000,000,000 Ally Financial received from taxpayers went towards helping GM (as well as Chrysler) which had already received about $50,000,000,000 in bailout funds. According to the Reuter's report "Ally has now emerged as a black mark on the roster of companies that received taxpayer-funded rescues" and "Ally is currently in talks to sell ResCap to Fortress Investment Group LLC in a process that could involve a bankruptcy filing, people familiar with the matter have said."

The outlook is not good regarding the taxpayer "investment." According to Neil Barofsky, the former TARP Special Inspector General, "It doesn't look great for Ally or the taxpayer going forward. It really calls into question Treasury's oversight and management." Besides the risks to the perception of success for the auto bailouts, there are also risks to GM and Chrysler if Ally Financial has to tighten up on its lending.

GM is still highly dependent on Ally Financial, despite growing its own financial arm. Ally does most of the retail lending and, perhaps more importantly, much of the inventory financing or "floor plans" for both GM and Chrysler. Dealerships need the financing to purchase vehicles from the manufacturers. And when it comes to those special leases for cars that need a little extra help, like the Chevy Volt, guess who provides those supported leases? Yep, good old, government-owned Ally Financial.

The Obama Administration has made it clear that they will be campaigning on the perceived success at GM and Chrysler. Ally Financial may finally get attention and, given the high stakes, you can bet that Team Obama will keep a close eye on the Ally situation. Given a choice between putting its campaign strategy at risk and throwing more taxpayer funds at Ally Financial, I would say taxpayers would lose.

There has been no limit to how many billions of dollars are spent to support the auto bailout. GM has been the primary recipient ensuring that the company can show profits and keep giving bonuses to the valued UAW workers who are lining up to help with Obama's reelection bid. If you think about it, it really is ludicrous to brag about saving a company by giving them $50 billion cash along with billions more in tax credits and the $17 billion for their primary lender, Ally. How can the company not appear to "succeed?"

The problem with the whole auto bailout process was that it focused on politics and a manipulation of bankruptcy codes instead of on truly improving the operations at GM. I had long ago mentioned the risk of GM not having an established "captive" finance arm , but those in charge of orchestrating the bankruptcy process were bankruptcy experts and financial industry heavyweights, not auto industry people. Taxpayer money was no object as long as UAW benefits were protected and GM could come out of the process with enough billions of dollars to give the appearance that they are a healthy and profitable company, at least long enough to get through the 2012 elections. The political influence is further evidenced by GM's continuing quest to make the money-losing Chevy Volt its flagship as it falsely blames low sales on critics who they claim have a right wing agenda.

A worrisome portion of the Reuter's story addressed the government's attempt to once again embed itself in Ally Financial and gain control of a restructuring effort. From the article:

Treasury officials have been looking for candidates to join Ally's board, which has nine members currently, but has had trouble attracting what they consider to be the right candidates, people close to the matter said. And while it recently proposed Harry Wilson - who was part of the White House's auto task force leading the sweeping 2009 restructuring of GM - for a board seat and to oversee Ally's restructuring, it backed down when Carpenter opposed the move, the sources said. Part of the issue was that Wilson wanted broader responsibilities than just board representation, seeking to be named 'chief restructuring officer,' they added.

Harry Wilson was the Auto Task Force member that put an end to attempts by other creditors to get fair representation in the GM bankruptcy proceeding. What is truly ironic is that Wilson threatened the bankruptcy court that Treasury would pull out of the deal and force GM to be liquidated if the court did not allow the process to play out just as the Obama Administration sought. Obama now accuses others of having wanted to liquidate GM when it was his team that actually made the threat. And, worse yet, the precedents of the GM case now sets the stage for our government to repeat the intrusion in to what should be the private market, as demonstrated by the Obama Administration trying to plant a "chief restructuring officer" at Ally Financial.

A source from the Reuter's piece says it best, "The government was going to bail out GM and everyone was supposed to fall in line. There wasn't good analysis. The GMAC part wasn't thought out well." It does not take a politically extreme viewpoint to realize that the auto bailout process was not quite the success that voters are expected to believe it was.

Mark Modica is an NLPC Associate Fellow.

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: allyfinancial; bailout; chevyvolt; chrysler; gm; governmentmotors; harrywilson; obama; uaw

1 posted on 03/19/2012 11:06:16 AM PDT by jazusamo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

Working link:

2 posted on 03/19/2012 11:07:35 AM PDT by jazusamo (Character assassination is just another form of voter fraud: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

The levels of car manufacturing (and sales) [just like housing] in the US. have been too high and they have been artificial - built on excessive leverage more than increasing income and savings.

The financial outfits of GMAC and FordMotor Credit were needed to obtain more leverage, and spread the needed leverage more broadly, throughout the financial system, becoming additional recipient’s of the Fed’s boosted money supply, helping to tranform the nation into a consumer nation from a producer nation; helping to change the job outlook from producing industries to consuming industries.

The condition at Ally is a symptom of that history of leveraged excess. Taxpayers should take their losses and let it close; maybe a forced sale of Ally’s debts to Goldman Sucks would be a good deal.

3 posted on 03/19/2012 11:37:08 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

But isn’t Ally the “best bank in the business” according to their ads? At least they answer their phones...


4 posted on 03/19/2012 11:40:22 AM PDT by ssaftler (Obama 2008: "Hope and Change" Obama 2012: "Excuses and Blame")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Years back, GMAC changed its name to Ally Financial to dissociate itself from GM

No, they changed their name to dissociate itself from itself. GMAC was one of the top offenders in the subprime mortgage fiasco, and changed their name after they got a bailout. No self respecting person wanted to be associated with GMAC, and neither did they. "Years back" Sounds like 20 years ago, it was less than four.

5 posted on 03/19/2012 4:42:27 PM PDT by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer

Vince, I consider 4 years to be “years”, but your point is taken. There was more to the name change than a disassociation. Article was updated (click above link to read) to address main reason for changes. GM had to reduce stake to under 10% for Ally to tap into TARP funds. They submitted and were approved for bank holding status at the time.

6 posted on 03/19/2012 5:09:38 PM PDT by Mark Modica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson