Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion Automotive news and discussion about upcoming vehicles

GM must sell for $134 a share for U.S. to recover investment

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Sep 23, 2010 | 12:27 PM
  #1  
El Duce's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 429
GM must sell for $134 a share for U.S. to recover investment

Riiiggghhhttt . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092205674.html
Old Sep 23, 2010 | 12:34 PM
  #2  
Z28x's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Share price means absolutely nothing. What does the market cap have to be? Toyota is at $112 Billion.
Old Sep 23, 2010 | 12:37 PM
  #3  
El Duce's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 429
Originally Posted by Z28x
Share price means absolutely nothing. What does the market cap have to be? Toyota is at $112 Billion.
The article doesn't say. But according to the article, share prices do mean something.

The closet thing in there that we could make guesses from is this:

"After the $50 billion investment in GM, the United States held a 61 percent stake in the company, as well as $2.1 billion in preferred stock and a $6.7 billion loan. The loan has been repaid, and whether the government can recoup its investment depends largely on the share price. "
Old Sep 23, 2010 | 12:44 PM
  #4  
JakeRobb's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,507
From: Okemos, MI
Originally Posted by Z28x
Share price means absolutely nothing. What does the market cap have to be? Toyota is at $112 Billion.
I thought that "market cap" means the number of shares multiplied by the price per share.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_capitalization

Market capitalization/capitalisation (often market cap) is a measurement of size of a business enterprise (corporation) equal to the share price times the number of shares outstanding (shares that have been authorized, issued, and purchased by investors) of a public company.
Yep, I was right.

Given that, I think you're wrong when you say that it means "absolutely nothing." That's akin to saying that "torque means absolutely nothing, horsepower is what matters."

Having said that, the $134/share requirement must be based on an assumption about the number of shares. If they want the price of an individual share to be lower, they need to offer more shares.
Old Sep 23, 2010 | 12:59 PM
  #5  
Plague's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,448
From: Irving, TX
What many corporations do is split the shares. A split 7 ways puts the share price below $20 bucks. I can see many people joining in at that price.
Old Sep 23, 2010 | 01:17 PM
  #6  
Z28Wilson's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,165
From: Sterling Heights, MI
$134 a share for GM stock isn't happening unless the IPO consists of only 10,000,000 shares or so. And who is going to buy at that price? Toyota is currently trading for around $71/share.
Old Sep 23, 2010 | 01:44 PM
  #7  
Z28x's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Originally Posted by JakeRobb
I thought that "market cap" means the number of shares multiplied by the price per share.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_capitalization



Yep, I was right.

Given that, I think you're wrong when you say that it means "absolutely nothing." That's akin to saying that "torque means absolutely nothing, horsepower is what matters."

Having said that, the $134/share requirement must be based on an assumption about the number of shares. If they want the price of an individual share to be lower, they need to offer more shares.
They make $134 sound like a lot, but without knowing how many shares there are it could be peanuts or a fortune. GM would be stupid to price the per share price over Toyota at $71. Honda's $35 is more like it. Your average investor is stupid. They think just because a share price is higher a company is worth more. XYZ is only $5, what a bargain. I work with a lot of people that think this way. They have no clue what market cap or Price to Earnings is.

Without the knowing the number of shares, the price per share means nothing. These "journalist" suck.
Old Sep 23, 2010 | 02:00 PM
  #8  
92RS shearn's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 470
From: Wichita, KS
If they don’t know those basics then they really should not be investing in individual stocks and just buy into mutual funds.

Regarding the article, I am wondering if they just made all of these assumptions to come up with this $134/ share just for a shock factor to drive people to read the article or for other motives entirely.
Old Sep 23, 2010 | 02:04 PM
  #9  
Z28x's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Originally Posted by 92RS shearn
If they don’t know those basics then they really should not be investing in individual stocks and just buy into mutual funds.
Now that you can trade online for as little as $4 everyone thinks they are Jim Crammer.

Originally Posted by 92RS shearn
Regarding the article, I am wondering if they just made all of these assumptions to come up with this $134/ share just for a shock factor to drive people to read the article or for other motives entirely.
This is what I am thinking.
Old Sep 23, 2010 | 02:24 PM
  #10  
JakeRobb's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,507
From: Okemos, MI
Whether it's worth it or not, a lot of "average" people will balk at paying that much for a single share -- especially when the amount is over $100.

So, the article says the US invested $50B. That sounds right, but I didn't make any effort to confirm that figure.

$50B / $134 = ~373.1 million shares

With a share count as arbitrary as that, it seems obvious to me that the right move would be to increase the number of shares by roughly a factor of two, and then sell the stock for ~$70.
Old Sep 23, 2010 | 03:04 PM
  #11  
95redLT1's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,505
From: Charleston, WV
Originally Posted by Z28x
Share price means absolutely nothing. What does the market cap have to be? Toyota is at $112 Billion.
Exactly....unless someone knows how many shares will be offered.

Last week, in fact, Morningstar analyst David Whiston issued a preliminary estimate setting the shares' fair value at $134.
I believe that's where the $134 price came from....that could potentially be the price for the IPO....however the U.S. will only be selling a percentage of their ownership initially.
Old Sep 23, 2010 | 03:28 PM
  #12  
mdenz3's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,173
Originally Posted by 92RS shearn
If they don’t know those basics then they really should not be investing in individual stocks and just buy into mutual funds.

Regarding the article, I am wondering if they just made all of these assumptions to come up with this $134/ share just for a shock factor to drive people to read the article or for other motives entirely.
This. What a horrible jumble of words to call journalism.
Old Sep 23, 2010 | 06:55 PM
  #13  
95redLT1's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,505
From: Charleston, WV
GM to sell most stock in U.S., split shares-sources

Here is a better article...


GM to sell most stock in U.S., split shares-sources


NEW YORK (Reuters) - Top U.S. automaker GeneralMotors Co will allocate most of the shares in itsinitial public offering to U.S. investors and plans to set ashare price low enough to attract retail investors, five peoplefamiliar with the matter said.

GM is likely to sell about 80 percent of the common sharesin its IPO and more than 90 percent of the preferred shares inNorth America, the people said. The people asked not to beidentified because preparations for the IPO remain private.

After a stock split, the shares could be priced at around$20 to $25 apiece, the sources said. That price range is seenas low enough to attract retail investors, who could accountfor as much as 25 percent of the offering, they said.

Most companies conduct a share split before their publicfloat to lower the per-share price to between $10 and $20. Thecommon practice is aimed at making the stock liquid andaccessible to retail buyers.

Before a split, GM shares would have to price at $133.78per share for U.S. taxpayers to recoup the $40 billion investedin the automaker's common stock, according to an estimateprepared by Neil Barofsky, inspector general for thegovernment's Troubled Asset Relief Program.

GM has yet to settle on the valuation for the entirecompany or a per share price range, the sources said.

GM and the U.S. Treasury have repeatedly declined tocomment on the IPO, citing securities regulations.

The Treasury said in a statement released Friday thatIPO investors would be sought across the multiple geographieswith a focus on North American investors and that the investorpool would be large and diverse.

The U.S. government used $50 billion of taxpayer money tohelp GM through a government-assisted bankruptcy. GM has repaid$6.7 billion of that amount that had been held in debt.

GM avoided liquidation and the Treasury took a 60.8 percentstake in the automaker, which it plans to begin exiting byselling shares in the IPO.

GM needs to have a market valuation of about $67 billion ifU.S. taxpayers are to break even on the common stock the Treasury still holds. That excludes the $2.1 billion inpreferred stock also held by the government.

An IPO price of about $20 per share would imply a roughly7-1 stock split ratio.


But IPOs typically price at a discount of 10 percent to 15percent to theoretical fair value to reward investors fortaking a risk on a new issue and pave the way for future stockfloats.

In GM's IPO, the discount could be as much as 20 percentcompared with the U.S. Treasury's break-even point, two sourcespreviously told Reuters.

The value of the GM deal will not be set for weeks, but itis expected to be one of the biggest IPOs of all time,globally, with estimates ranging as high as $20 billion,sources said.

GM's early plans envisaged selling between $12 billion to$16 billion of common stock, as well as $3 billion to $4billion in preferred stock that would convert to common sharesunder a mandatory provision, a source told Reuters earlier.

As of now, the United Auto Workers healthcare trust, whichowns 17.5 percent of GM, and the governments of Canada andOntario, which own 11.7 percent, have not decided whether toparticipate in the IPO, another source familiar with thesources said Wednesday.

With the approach of U.S. midterm congressional electionsand the hefty taxpayer investment, the IPO has become apolitical flashpoint.

The Obama administration is eager to paint the autoindustry bailout and GM's IPO as a success while Republicansand other bailout critics are keen to point out problems.

The Treasury said last week it would not directly involveitself in share allocation decisions. Those decisions will beleft to an underwriting syndicate led by Morgan Stanley,JPMorgan, Bank of America Merrill Lynch and Citi. (Reporting by Soyoung Kim and Clare Baldwin in New York, KevinKrolicki in Detroit and Philipp Halstrick in Frankfurt)

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2...hares-sources/
Old Sep 24, 2010 | 08:00 AM
  #14  
guionM's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Considering what US taxpayers saved in additional federal, state, and local taxes if GM had gone under, let alone lost income of those businesses and individuals whose livelihoods were directly or indirectly attached to the General Motors Corperation and it's suppliers, and the ripple effects GM shutting down would have had on the economy, even if stocks sold for half that, all of us taxpayers far more than made our money back...... by a long shot!


The strike GM had just over 10 years ago had about a 2% effect on the US economy, even though everything else was booming.

Imagine a complete and permanent shutdown of GM during a major (and at the time, growing) recession.
Old Sep 24, 2010 | 09:10 AM
  #15  
Z28x's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Originally Posted by 95redLT1
Here is a better article...

GM needs to have a market valuation of about $67 billion ifU.S. taxpayers are to break even on the common stock the Treasury still holds. That excludes the $2.1 billion inpreferred stock also held by the government.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2...hares-sources/
Ford is $42B, Honda is $63B, Toyota is $114B. Just based on the competition I'd say it is possible for GM to be around $60B. That is just my guess, I still haven't seen the rest of their numbers.


Originally Posted by guionM
Considering what US taxpayers saved in additional federal, state, and local taxes if GM had gone under, let alone lost income of those businesses and individuals whose livelihoods were directly or indirectly attached to the General Motors Corperation and it's suppliers, and the ripple effects GM shutting down would have had on the economy, even if stocks sold for half that, all of us taxpayers far more than made our money back...... by a long shot!


The strike GM had just over 10 years ago had about a 2% effect on the US economy, even though everything else was booming.

Imagine a complete and permanent shutdown of GM during a major (and at the time, growing) recession.
A lot of people forget all that. Keeping GM running saved us taxpayers a lot of money.



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:33 AM.