This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-471 
entitled 'TARP: Treasury's Exit from GM and Chrysler Highlights 
Competing Goals, and Results of Support to Auto Communities Are 
Unclear' which was released on May 10, 2011. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

May 2011: 

TARP: 

Treasury's Exit from GM and Chrysler Highlights Competing Goals, and 
Results of Support to Auto Communities Are Unclear: 

GAO-11-471: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-11-471, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Since December 2008, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) has 
committed $62 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funding 
to General Motors (GM) and Chrysler. Under GAO’s mandate to oversee 
TARP, this report addresses (1) how restructuring with federal 
assistance has affected GM’s and Chrysler’s financial condition, 
(2) what Treasury has done to ensure that it disinvests in GM and 
Chrysler so as to protect taxpayers’ interests and what risks remain 
in recouping its investments, and (3) how restructuring has affected 
auto communities and what the White House Council on Auto Communities 
and Workers (Council) and its staff in the Department of Labor’s 
Office of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers (Auto Recovery 
Office) have done to mitigate these effects. GAO reviewed documents on 
the companies’ financial performance and federal assistance to auto 
communities and interviewed company, Treasury, and community officials. 

What GAO Found: 

Substantial federal assistance allowed GM and Chrysler to restructure 
their costs and improve their financial condition. Through federally-
funded restructuring, GM and Chrysler reported lowering production 
costs and capacities by closing or idling factories, laying off 
employees, and reducing their debt and number of vehicle brands and 
models. These changes enabled both companies to report operating 
profits and reduce costs enough to be profitable at much lower sales 
levels than ever before. Nevertheless, to remain profitable, both 
companies must manage challenges affecting both their costs, including 
debt levels, and vehicle demand, such as launching products that are 
attractive to consumers amid rising fuel prices. 

Treasury has recouped roughly 40 percent of its investments in GM and 
Chrysler, but the extent to which it will further recoup its 
investments depends on how it balances two potentially competing goals 
for divestment-—to maximize taxpayers’ return and to exit the 
companies as soon as practicable. By participating in GM’s November 
2010 initial public offering (IPO), Treasury tried to fulfill both 
goals, selling almost half of its shares at an early opportunity. In 
preparation for the IPO, Treasury took steps to protect taxpayers’ 
interest, such as hiring an adviser to provide analysis and support, 
as GAO previously recommended. Treasury received $13.5 billion through 
the IPO; yet, for Treasury to fully recoup its investment, GM’s share 
price will have to increase from the $33 Treasury received in the IPO 
to an average of over $54-—a higher price than industry analysts 
estimate over roughly a 6 to 18 month period. Chrysler’s value would 
have to grow above historic levels for Treasury to recoup its 
investment. In divesting from the companies, Treasury may find its 
interest in exiting as soon as practicable at odds with the potential 
to increase taxpayers’ return by waiting for the remaining shares to 
rise in value. 

While federally-funded restructuring allowed GM and Chrysler to remain 
in business, and therefore benefited communities where auto work 
continued, communities where plants were idled or closed experienced 
economic challenges beyond those they already faced. The Council and 
the Auto Recovery Office, which were established to help auto 
communities navigate federal programs, have brought federal attention 
to auto communities. However, communities that GAO visited had mixed 
views on the results of these efforts. Furthermore, the Council has 
not completed two of the four functions set forth in the executive 
order establishing it, and neither the Council nor its staff have 
demonstrated the results of their efforts. Although the Council is set 
to expire in June 2011 unless renewed by the President, fiscal year 
2012 funding has been requested for the Auto Recovery Office to 
continue its efforts. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that the Secretary of Labor report to Congress how the 
Auto Recovery Office has helped auto communities and its future plans, 
and that Congress consider not funding the office unless this 
information is provided. The Department of Labor agreed with parts of 
the recommendation, provided additional information on the office’s 
activities, and stated that it would identify the office’s future 
plans in the next 60 days. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-471] or key 
components. For more information, contact A. 
Nicole Clowers (clowersa@gao.gov) at 202-512-8678. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Federal Assistance Allowed GM and Chrysler to Restructure Their Costs 
and Improve Their Financial Condition: 

Treasury's Timing of Its Exit from GM and Chrysler and Return on 
Investment Will Depend on How It Balances Its Competing Goals: 

Council Established to Help Auto Communities Has Not Demonstrated the 
Results of Its Efforts: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

Matter for Congressional Consideration: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Comments from the United States Department of Labor: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of the Treasury: 

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: GM's Employees, Plants, Dealers, Brands, Models, and Debt As 
of Year End for 2007, 2008, and 2010 and Related Restructuring Targets: 

Table 2: Chrysler's Employees, Plants, Dealers, Brands, Models, and 
Debt, 2007, 2008, and 2010 and Available Restructuring Targets: 

Table 3: Changes in GM's and Chrysler's Net Income, Operating Income, 
and Cash Flow: 

Table 4: Status of AIFP Assistance to GM and Chrysler, as of April 28, 
2011: 

Table 5: Unemployment Rate before and after Restructuring in Case 
Study Communities, States, and the Nation: 

Table 6: Percentage Change in Housing Price Index (HPI) Compared with 
the Third Quarter of the Previous Year for the Years before, during, 
and after Restructuring in the Metropolitan Areas of the Case Study 
Communities and States: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: GM Operating Income and Worldwide Sales, 2005 through 2010: 

Figure 2: GM Share Price for November 18, 2010, through April 26, 
2011, and the Pre-and Post-IPO GM Share Price Needed to Fully Recoup 
Treasury's Investment: 

Figure 3: GM and Chrysler Plants Closed or Idled in 2008-2010 
Restructuring: 

Abbreviations: 

AIFP: Automobile Industry Financing Program: 

CBO: Congressional Budget Office: 

EESA: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008: 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency: 

GDP: gross national product: 

GM: General Motors: 

HPI: Housing Price Index: 

IPO: initial public offering: 

SEC: Securities and Exchange Commission: 

TARP: Troubled Asset Relief Program: 

UAW: United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers 
of America: 

VEBA: Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association: 

WIA: Workforce Investment Act: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

May 10, 2011: 

Congressional Committees: 

In late 2008 and early 2009, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) 
provided unprecedented support to two of the nation's three largest 
auto manufacturers--General Motors (GM) and Chrysler--after 
deteriorating economic conditions resulted in a dramatic decline in 
auto sales and significant financial losses to these companies. 
[Footnote 1] Through the Automotive Industry Financing Program (AIFP) 
under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), Treasury committed $62 
billion to help GM and Chrysler continue operating while restructuring 
into more viable companies.[Footnote 2] As we previously reported, the 
companies' restructuring efforts addressed some of their key 
challenges, including reducing their reported debt and labor costs, 
consolidating production, and rationalizing their dealership networks. 
[Footnote 3] While Treasury has begun to recoup its investment in 
these companies--most notably, through GM's initial public offering 
(IPO) in November 2010--more than $34 billion of Treasury's assistance 
to GM and Chrysler remains to be recovered. 

As GM and Chrysler restructured, many communities that relied heavily 
on these companies and their suppliers for employment and economic 
investment faced plant closures and workforce reductions, among other 
effects, while facing already precarious economic conditions. 
Anticipating the possible effects of the companies' restructuring, in 
June 2009, the Administration created the White House Council on 
Automotive Communities and Workers (Council)--made up of 
representatives from over 20 federal agencies and councils--to 
coordinate a federal response to issues affecting communities that 
rely on GM, Chrysler, or other auto companies and suppliers and 
demonstrate the Administration's commitment to providing these 
communities with support in recovering from changes in the auto 
industry. The staff for the Council is housed within the Department of 
Labor's Office of Recovery of Auto Communities and Workers (Auto 
Recovery Office). 

As part of our statutorily mandated responsibilities for providing 
timely oversight of TARP, we are continuing to monitor Treasury's 
assistance to the auto industry, including the effect of restructuring 
on communities that rely on the auto industry.[Footnote 4] This report 
will explore: (1) how restructuring with federal assistance has 
affected GM's and Chrysler's reported financial condition; (2) steps 
that Treasury has taken to ensure that the disposition of its 
investments in GM and Chrysler is designed and timed to protect 
taxpayers' interests and the risks that remain in recouping Treasury's 
investments; and (3) the effects of GM's and Chrysler's restructuring 
on communities that rely on the auto industry as their economic base 
and the assistance that the Council and the Auto Recovery Office 
provided to mitigate those effects. 

To determine how restructuring with federal assistance has affected 
GM's and Chrysler's financial condition, we reviewed the companies' 
audited and unaudited financial statements filed with the Securities 
and Exchange Commission (SEC), selected documents from their 
bankruptcy proceedings, and company-provided data. We interviewed 
representatives of the companies and industry analysts and experts. To 
identify the steps that Treasury has taken to ensure that the 
disposition of its investments in GM and Chrysler is designed and 
timed to protect taxpayers' interests and the risks that remain in 
recouping Treasury's investments, we reviewed available documents from 
Treasury related to its oversight of and plans to divest itself from 
its auto company investments, including Treasury's press releases and 
guidance. We interviewed officials from Treasury's Office of Financial 
Stability--the office created to administer TARP--about their 
continuing efforts to monitor and divest the government's financial 
interests in the auto companies. We also interviewed officials with 
Lazard Frères & Co. LLC (Lazard), Treasury's financial adviser for its 
auto company investments, to discuss the analyses and support Lazard 
provided on the disposition of Treasury's investments in GM and 
Chrysler. We also reviewed analysis prepared by Lazard for Treasury as 
the department prepared for GM's IPO. 

To examine the effects of GM's and Chrysler's restructuring on 
communities that rely on the auto industry as their economic base, we 
used data from the Council, Brookings Institution, GM, and Chrysler to 
select six case study communities in which a GM or Chrysler plant was 
closed or idled between 2008 and 2010 and the auto industry employment 
base was more than twice the national average. Our case study 
communities include (1) Detroit, Michigan; (2) Flint, Michigan; (3) 
Dayton/Moraine, Ohio; (4) Mansfield, Ohio; (5) Wilmington, Delaware; 
and (6) Nashville/Spring Hill, Tennessee.[Footnote 5] To identify the 
assistance provided by the Council to these communities to help 
mitigate the effects of restructuring, we reviewed the executive order 
establishing the Council and the Council's 2010 annual report. We 
interviewed officials from the Council and each case study community, 
including the city mayor's office and economic development, chamber of 
commerce, and community college officials. To assess the reliability 
of GM's and Chrysler's financial information, as well as the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics' unemployment data and the Federal Housing and 
Finance Agency's housing price index data, we (1) reviewed existing 
documentation related to the data sources and (2) tested for missing 
data, outliers, and obvious errors in the data. We determined that the 
data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report. 

We conducted this performance audit from May 2010 to May 2011 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

TARP Assistance for Restructuring GM and Chrysler: 

Through AIFP under TARP, Treasury committed $62 billion to GM ($49.5 
billion) and Chrysler ($12.5 billion) to support the companies during 
their restructurings as they attempted to return to profitability. 
[Footnote 6] As a condition of receiving this federal assistance, the 
companies were required to submit plans to Treasury that would, among 
other things, identify how the companies intended to achieve and 
sustain long-term financial viability. These plans established targets 
for addressing some of the companies' key challenges to achieving 
viability, including reducing debt, reducing numbers of brands and 
models, rationalizing dealership networks, and reducing production 
costs and capacity. To effectuate the restructuring plans, both 
companies filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 
11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Through the bankruptcy process, the 
newly organized Chrysler and GM purchased substantially all of the 
operating assets of the old companies under a sale pursuant to Section 
363 of the bankruptcy code. After the respective sales in June 2009 
and July 2009, the new Chrysler and new GM began operating with 
substantially less debt and with streamlined operations.[Footnote 7] 
The bankruptcy courts signed orders approving old Chrysler's plan of 
liquidation on April 23, 2010, and old GM's amended bankruptcy plan on 
March 29, 2011, and the companies' assets and liabilities were 
transferred to liquidating trusts. 

In exchange for Treasury's financial assistance, Treasury received 
60.8 percent common equity and $2.1 billion of preferred shares in new 
GM, 9.85 percent equity in new Chrysler, and $11.8 billion in debt 
obligations between the companies.[Footnote 8] These funds, along with 
loans from the Canadian government and concessions from nearly every 
stakeholder, including the companies' primary labor union--the 
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural 
Implement Workers of America (UAW)--were intended to give the 
companies time to restructure to improve their competitiveness and 
long-term viability. 

Treasury's Stewardship of Its Ownership Stake in GM and Chrysler: 

Treasury's equity in GM and Chrysler gives Treasury an ownership stake 
in both companies. The Administration has stated that the government 
is a "reluctant shareholder" in GM and Chrysler, but that it would be 
irresponsible to "[give] away the equity stake to which taxpayers were 
rightly entitled." In July 2009, Treasury outlined guiding principles 
for its involvement in the auto industry, including: 

* exiting its investments as soon as practicable; 

* maximizing the return on its investment; 

* improving the strength and viability of GM and Chrysler; and: 

* managing its ownership stake in a hands-off, commercial manner, 
including voting its shares only on core governance issues, such as 
the selection of a company's board of directors and major corporate 
events or transactions.[Footnote 9] 

Treasury has an internal working group within the Office of Financial 
Stability--referred to as the auto team--to oversee AIFP, including 
Treasury's investment in GM and Chrysler. The auto team monitors the 
companies' performance, including reviewing the companies' progress 
against their restructuring plans and analyzing financial and market 
indicators to determine options for divesting Treasury's investments. 
We previously reported that Treasury should have a plan for ending its 
financial involvement in GM and Chrysler that would indicate how it 
would both sell its equity and ensure adequate repayment for the 
financial assistance it provided[Footnote 10]. In November 2009, we 
recommended improvements to Treasury's approach for monitoring and 
divesting its investment in GM and Chrysler, including retaining 
expertise to advise Treasury on the sale and oversight of its equity, 
communicating to Congress its plans to assess and monitor the 
companies' performance, and developing criteria for evaluating the 
optimal method and timing for divesting the government's ownership 
stake in GM and Chrysler.[Footnote 11] We discuss the status of these 
recommendations later in the report. 

White House Council on Automotive Communities and Workers: 

As part of its efforts to help communities affected by changes in the 
auto industry, in early 2009, the President designated a Director of 
Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers, and the Department of Labor 
established the Auto Recovery Office, headed by the director, to focus 
on the economic recovery of auto communities and workers. In June 
2009, the President issued an executive order establishing the Council 
to "establish a coordinated Federal response to issues that 
particularly impact automotive communities and workers and to ensure 
that Federal programs and policies address and take into account these 
concerns."[Footnote 12] The Secretary of Labor and the Director of the 
National Economic Council and Assistant to the President for Economic 
Policy co-chair the Council, which is composed of over 20 members, 
including the heads of all domestic cabinet agencies and key White 
House offices.[Footnote 13] As established in the executive order, the 
executive director of the Auto Recovery Office also serves as the 
executive director of the Council and coordinates the Council's 
activities. 

The Council's functions, as outlined in the executive order, are to: 

* provide leadership and coordinate the development of policies and 
programs across executive departments and agencies to ensure a 
coordinated federal response to issues that have a distinct impact on 
automotive communities and workers, 

* advise the President on the effects of pending legislation and 
executive branch policy proposals on auto communities and workers, 

* provide recommendations to the President on changes to federal 
policies and programs to address issues of special importance to 
automotive communities and workers, and: 

* help ensure that officials across the executive branch advance the 
President's agenda for auto communities. 

The Auto Recovery Office, funded through the Department of Labor, 
serves as the working staff for the Council. The office works directly 
with state and local officials in affected communities to help them 
receive federal support through existing federal programs to improve 
the communities' economic condition. The office's budget--$2.35 
million in fiscal year 2010 and $2.42 million and $2.36 million 
requested for fiscal years 2011 and 2012, respectively--covers Council 
staff salaries and benefits and a contract for a report on issues 
related to auto communities.[Footnote 14] Under the executive order, 
the Council is set to expire on June 23, 2011, unless extended by the 
President. 

Federal Assistance Allowed GM and Chrysler to Restructure Their Costs 
and Improve Their Financial Condition: 

Federal Assistance Enabled GM and Chrysler to Restructure and Reduce 
Costs through Bankruptcy: 

As we previously reported, substantial government assistance allowed 
GM and Chrysler to restructure their balance sheets and obligations 
through the bankruptcy code and tackle key challenges to achieving 
viability. In December 2008, the chief executive officers of GM and 
Chrysler testified before Congress that, without federal assistance, 
their companies would likely run out of the cash needed to continue 
operating, which could have resulted in a disorderly liquidation. With 
federal assistance, the companies avoided these outcomes, and, 
although bankruptcies can be drawn-out processes that take years to 
complete, both old GM and old Chrysler entered bankruptcy and 
completed sales of their assets to new GM and new Chrysler within 
about a month. Without federal assistance from Treasury, the companies 
may not have been able to finance their restructuring and may have had 
to liquidate. 

As tables 1 and 2 show, through restructuring, GM and Chrysler 
reported lower fixed costs and capacities by reducing their numbers of 
factories, employees, and dealerships. In addition, GM eliminated a 
substantial amount of its long-term debt and reduced the number of 
vehicle brands and models it sells. As table 1 shows, GM identified 
targets for these operational metrics in its restructuring plan, and 
as of December 31, 2010, reported that it had met its brand and model 
targets along with significantly reducing its debt. In addition, GM 
reported making progress toward meeting its targets for number of 
plants and U.S. employees, set for 2012 and 2014, respectively. GM 
officials said that the company did not meet its restructuring target 
for the number of dealers because of decisions--made by the company or 
resulting from statutorily mandated arbitration--to reinstate some of 
the dealerships originally selected in the plan for closure.[Footnote 
15] 

Table 1: GM's Employees, Plants, Dealers, Brands, Models, and Debt As 
of Year End for 2007, 2008, and 2010 and Related Restructuring Targets: 

GM: U.S. employees[B]; 
2007: 109,859; 
2008: 91,176; 
2010: 76,562; 
Restructuring targets[A]: 63,000 in 2014. 

GM: U.S. plants; 
2007: 51; 
2008: 47; 
2010: 40; 
Restructuring targets[A]: 31 in 2012. 

GM: U.S. dealers; 
2007: 6,776; 
2008: 6,246; 
2010: 4,458; 
Restructuring targets[A]: 3,605 in 2010. 

GM: U.S. brands; 
2007: 8; 
2008: 8; 
2010: 4; 
Restructuring targets[A]: 4 in 2010. 

GM: U.S. models; 
2007: 49; 
2008: 48; 
2010: 34; 
Restructuring targets[A]: 34 in 2010. 

GM: Long-and short-term debt; 
2007: $39.4 billion; 
2008: $45.3 billion; 
2010: $4.6 billion; 
Restructuring targets[A]: [C]. 

Source: GM SEC filings and viability plan and company-provided data. 

Note: GM dramatically reduced production while in bankruptcy in the 
summer of 2009, therefore, data for 2009 are not comparable to data 
for previous or subsequent years and are not included in this table. 
Also, the debt amounts do not include pension or other postretirement 
benefit liabilities. 

[A] According to GM, these restructuring targets are as of May 31, 
2009. 

[B] U.S. employee numbers are approximate. 

[C] GM's restructuring plan includes a $14.9 billion target for 
secured and unsecured debt in 2010, but GM does not report comparable 
debt numbers in its financial statements. 

[End of table] 

Chrysler identified changes in two operational metrics--brands and 
models--and established select financial targets, including a debt 
reduction target in its November 4, 2009, restructuring plan. In 2009, 
Chrysler increased the number of brands from three to four by dividing 
the Dodge/Ram brand into two separate brands--Dodge and Ram. The 
company's reported debt, however, has increased because the company 
issued debt to independent health care trusts, resulting in a 
reduction of other liabilities on its balance sheet related to post-
employment health care benefits. Chrysler reduced its numbers of U.S. 
plants, dealerships, and employees (see table 2). 

Table 2: Chrysler's Employees, Plants, Dealers, Brands, Models, and 
Debt, 2007, 2008, and 2010 and Available Restructuring Targets: 

Chrysler: U.S. employees[B]; 
2007: 55,100; 
2008: 36,500; 
2010: 34,200; 
Restructuring targets[A]: Not established. 

Chrysler: U.S. plants; 
2007: 23; 
2008: 21; 
2010: 17; 
Restructuring targets[A]: Not established. 

Chrysler: U.S. dealers; 
2007: 3,585; 
2008: 3,298; 
2010: 2,311; 
Restructuring targets[A]: Not established. 

Chrysler: Brands; 
2007: 3; 
2008: 3; 
2010: 4; 
Restructuring targets[A]: 4 in 2010. 

Chrysler: Models; 
2007: 28; 
2008: 27; 
2010: 23; 
Restructuring targets[A]: 24 in 2010. 

Chrysler: Industrial debt[C]; 
2007: $8.2 billion; 
2008: $11.3 billion; 
2010: $13.1 billion[D]; 
Restructuring targets[A]: $8 billion in 2014. 

Source: Chrysler. 

Note: Chrysler reduced production while in bankruptcy in the spring of 
2009; therefore, data for 2009 are not comparable to data for previous 
or subsequent years and are not included in this table. 

[A] According to Chrysler officials, the company did not establish non-
financial targets in its November 4, 2009, restructuring plan so the 
brand and model numbers included in that plan do not represent 
restructuring targets for the company. 

[B] U.S. employee numbers are approximate and as of the end of the 
year. 

[C] Chrysler reports its industrial debt, which includes only the 
liabilities related to its automotive business and excludes its Gold 
Key Lease self-liquidating debt. 

[D] As of December 31, 2010, the largest components of Chrysler's debt 
were its loans from Treasury, the Canadian governments, and the 
Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (VEBA) trust, which was 
established to provide for Chrysler retiree health benefits under an 
agreement with the UAW. 

[End of table] 

Through Restructuring, Both GM and Chrysler Have Improved Their 
Reported Financial Condition: 

As company officials and auto industry analysts pointed out, the key 
result of restructuring was that the companies reduced their fixed 
costs levels, allowing them to be profitable at much lower sales 
levels than before, thereby decreasing their "break even" levels. For 
example, in the third quarter of 2007, GM indicated that it needed to 
sell 3.9 million vehicles in the United States annually (assuming a 25 
percent share of the total 15.5 million U.S. vehicle sales market) in 
order to break even. Now, after restructuring, GM indicates that it 
needs to sell roughly half as many vehicles in the United States--
around 2 million annually--in order to cover its fixed costs. As noted 
in its November 4, 2009, business plan, Chrysler, at that time, had to 
ship roughly 1.65 million vehicles worldwide annually to break even on 
its operating income. Chrysler's reported worldwide shipments reached 
1.6 million vehicles in 2010.[Footnote 16] According to Chrysler, the 
company has since reduced its operating break even to roughly 1.5 
million vehicles worldwide (assuming a U.S. vehicle sales market level 
between 10 million to 11 million vehicles) due to operating 
efficiencies and other cost reduction actions. 

These reductions in the break-even level have been particularly 
important, as total reported auto sales in the United States in 2010 
were around 11.8 million--down from 13.5 million in 2008, just before 
the economic recession pushed sales down to 10.6 million in 2009. 
Assuming that the companies maintain this competitive cost structure, 
they are positioned to be profitable at any U.S. industry sales market 
above their reported break-even levels--between 10.5 million and 11 
million in total industry sales for GM[Footnote 17] and between 10 
million and 11 million in total industry sales for Chrysler--assuming 
that the companies maintain their current market share. GM officials 
told us that lowering GM's U.S. break-even point has been one of the 
most significant outcomes of restructuring because it allows the 
company to break even at or near the "bottom of the cycle." IHS Global 
Insight, a private-sector firm that provides economic and financial 
forecasts and industry analysis, estimates that total U.S. vehicle 
sales will rebound to 13.3 million in 2011 and 16 million in 2013, 
which would be above the companies' break-even points. 

Since reducing their costs through restructuring, GM and Chrysler have 
reported dramatically improving their financial performance. As table 
3 shows, both companies reported improvements in their net income, 
operating income, and cash flow metrics between 2008 and 2010. As 
table 3 shows, GM reported a net income of about $4.7 billion in 2010, 
which is the company's first annual profit since 2004. GM also 
reported a Chrysler reported a modified operating income of $763 
million in 2010, up from a modified operating loss of about $3 billion 
in 2008 prior to restructuring.[Footnote 18] Chrysler's net losses 
generally declined in 2010--from $197 million in the first quarter of 
2010 to $172 million in the second quarter and down to $84 million in 
the third quarter. But in the fourth quarter of 2010, its reported 
losses increased to $199 million. According to Chrysler officials, the 
company continued to report net losses in 2010 primarily due to the 
approximately $1.3 billion in interest charges on its debt. Chrysler 
set a net income target of $0.2 billion to $0.5 billion in 2011, and 
in the first quarter of 2011, reported a net income of $116 million--
its first quarterly net profit since the new company began operations 
in 2009. 

Table 3: Changes in GM's and Chrysler's Net Income, Operating Income, 
and Cash Flow: 

GM: Net income (loss) to common stockholders; 
2007: ($38.54 billion); 
2008: ($30.94 billion); 
2010: $4.67 billion. 

GM: Operating income (loss); 
2007: ($4.31 billion); 
2008: ($21.23 billion); 
2010: $5.08 billion. 

GM: Operating cash flow; 
2007: $7.73 billion; 
2008: ($12.07 billion); 
2010: $6.78 billion. 

Chrysler: Net income (loss); 
2007: Not available[A]; 
2008: ($16.8 billion)[B]; 
2010: ($0.65 billion). 

Chrysler: Modified operating income (loss)[C]; 
2007: Not available; 
2008: ($3.0 billion); 
2010: $0.76 billion. 

Chrysler: Operating cash flow; 
2007: Not available; 
2008: ($5.3 billion); 
2010: $4.2 billion. 

Source: GM and Chrysler SEC filings. 

Note: We did not include 2009 data because new GM and new Chrysler 
began operating in the summer of 2009. Consequently, 2009 annual data 
are not comparable to data for other years. 

[A] Chrysler officials noted that the company's 2007 financial data 
are not meaningful because Daimler sold Chrysler to Cerberus in that 
year, resulting in purchase accounting adjustments. 

[B] According to Chrysler officials, the net loss for year-end 2008 
includes impairment charges for goodwill and brand name intangible 
assets of $10.4 billion and restructuring charges of $1.3 billion. 

[C] Chrysler uses modified operating income (loss), a non-GAAP 
financial measure to monitor operating results. Chrysler notes that 
this financial measure may not be comparable to other similarly titled 
measures of other companies, such as GM. 

[End of table] 

Figure 1 illustrates that GM has improved its reported operating 
income despite a decline in its worldwide sales. Specifically, while 
GM's reported worldwide sales dropped from roughly 9.2 million in 2005 
to 8.4 million in 2010, GM's operating income increased during this 
period--from a $16 billion loss in 2005 and a $21 billion loss in 2008 
before restructuring and then to a profit of roughly $5 billion in 
2010. Since, according to Chrysler officials, 2007 data are not 
meaningful because of the change in ownership, we are not able to 
provide a similar historical trend and comparison for Chrysler. 

Figure 1: GM Operating Income and Worldwide Sales, 2005 through 2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: combined vertical bar and line graph] 

Year: 2005; 
Operating income or loss: -$16.04 billion; 
GM worldwide sales: 9.2 million. 

Year: 2006; 
Operating income or loss: -$5.82 billion; 
GM worldwide sales: 9.1 million. 

Year: 2007; 
Operating income or loss: -$4.31 billion; 
GM worldwide sales: 9.4 million. 

Year: 2008; 
Operating income or loss: -$21.23 billion; 
GM worldwide sales: 8.4 million. 

Year: 2009; 
Operating income or loss: [Empty]; 
GM worldwide sales: [Empty]. 

Year: 2010[A]; 	
Operating income or loss: $5 billion; 
GM worldwide sales: 8.4 million. 

Source: GM SEC filings. 

[A] As previously noted, GM dramatically reduced production in the 
summer of 2009; therefore, data for 2009 are not comparable to data 
for previous or subsequent years and are not included in this figure. 

[End of figure] 

Further Improvement in the Companies' Financial Condition Will Depend 
on Their Ability to Continue to Contain Costs While Mitigating 
Challenges Affecting Vehicle Demand: 

While GM and Chrysler have taken steps to improve their financial 
condition, they face additional challenges that could affect their 
future profitability. Both companies must work to manage challenges 
affecting their costs, such as funding pension obligations and pending 
labor negotiations, and vehicle demand, such as the fragility of the 
economy and fuel price volatility. 

Cost Containment Will Depend on the Extent to Which the Companies Can 
Fund Pension Plans, Reduce Debt, and Negotiate Favorable Labor 
Contracts in 2011: 

* Funding pension obligations and reducing U.S. government debt: GM 
and Chrysler are working to fund their pension plans and reduce their 
debt levels. As of December 31, 2010, GM reported that its U.S. 
pension plans were underfunded (i.e., the value of plan assets was 
less than the value of plan liabilities) by $12.4 billion, down from 
$17.1 billion at the end of 2009. This reduction is to some extent the 
result of GM's voluntary contribution of $4 billion in cash to its 
defined benefit pension plans in December 2010. Additionally, in 
January 2011, GM contributed approximately $2 billion in common stock 
to the plans, and GM's former chief financial officer publicly stated 
that the contribution was part of GM's goal to fully fund the pension 
plans and minimize debt. We previously reported that GM has large 
"credit balances" based on contributions made in prior years that may 
be used to offset contributions that may otherwise be required. 
[Footnote 19] While projections of funding requirements are inherently 
sensitive to underlying assumptions, GM currently projects that 
required contributions will amount to no more than $3.5 billion 
through 2016. Thus, while the company's recent, voluntary 
contributions may help reduce a portion of the underfunding among its 
plans, the plans may continue to be underfunded for several years or 
more unless, among other things, GM makes additional voluntary 
contributions or the plans' asset performance improves. Additionally, 
company executives told us that they are working to try to reduce the 
company's debt and rely on cash generated from its business to fund 
capital expenditures. For example, in April 2010, the company repaid 
its loan from Treasury, and in January 2011, GM withdrew its 
application for a $14.4 billion loan through the Department of 
Energy's Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program. 
[Footnote 20] In a press release, the company stated that this 
decision was based on its confidence in its overall progress and 
performance and was consistent with its goal of carrying minimal debt 
on its balance sheet. 

As of December 31, 2010, Chrysler reported that its worldwide defined 
benefit pension plans were underfunded by approximately $4 billion, 
and the company had not committed to making additional, voluntary 
contributions to its plans above the minimum amounts required by law. 
[Footnote 21] We previously reported that Chrysler, like GM, has 
large, available credit balances to offset contributions that may 
otherwise be required for some of its defined benefit pension plans. 
In its most recent annual financial statement, Chrysler reported that 
it expects to use credit balances such that no cash contributions are 
projected to be required in 2011. Chrysler did not report dollar 
projections of its future contribution requirements beyond 2011. 
However, we previously reported that as of February 2010, Chrysler 
expected required contributions to increase significantly in 2013 and 
would need to make large contributions to its pension plans--about 
$3.4 billion between 2009 and 2015--to meet minimum-funding 
requirements. The first principal payment on Chrysler's $5 billion 
debt to Treasury is scheduled for December 2011, although it had made 
about $638 million in interest payments, as of March 31, 2011. 
[Footnote 22] However, on April 28, 2011, the company announced that 
it planned to repay this loan during the second quarter of 2011. 
Chrysler officials reported that this debt, as well as that to the UAW 
Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (VEBA)--the entity to which 
GM and Chrysler transferred their hourly retiree healthcare 
obligations--and other financial obligations, could affect the 
company's financial performance in the future. 

* Negotiating favorable labor costs: As previously mentioned, GM and 
Chrysler significantly reduced their reported labor costs by 
restructuring, but their ability to maintain these reductions will be 
challenged in upcoming labor negotiations. Since 2008, the companies 
have reported lowering their labor costs, in part, by reducing the 
size of their workforces and making more efficient use of their 
workforces by, for instance, closing plants and running additional 
shifts at existing plants, thus increasing the production capacity for 
some of their plants. These labor cost reductions may be difficult to 
maintain, however, as the companies' contracts with their primary U.S. 
union, the UAW, are set to expire in September 2011 and negotiation on 
the next contracts will soon begin. The UAW made significant 
concessions during restructuring, such as agreeing to reductions in 
compensation for U.S. workers to levels paid by foreign automakers 
like Honda, Nissan, and Toyota to their U.S. workers, as well as the 
cancellation of cost-of-living adjustments for current workers. 
Industry experts we spoke with noted that the UAW could attempt to 
regain some of these concessions in the 2011 negotiations, and the 
UAW's president has issued press releases stating that UAW members 
should share in the companies' newfound financial improvements. 
[Footnote 23] Because of its improved financial condition in 2010, GM 
reported that it provided its hourly employees with profit-sharing 
payments averaging about $4,300 per hourly employee, based on the 
profit sharing plan negotiated with its unions. Chrysler, in 
recognition of the performance and results achieved in 2010 by its 
hourly employees in the United States and Canada, reported issuing a 
performance payment in the amount of $750 per hourly employee. 

Vehicle Demand Will Depend on the Overall Health of the Economy, Fuel 
Prices, New Product Launches, and Retail Sales: 

* Economic improvement: Consumer purchases of new cars are highly 
correlated with the overall health of the economy, with consumers 
purchasing fewer vehicles during economic downturns. During the recent 
recession, total industry light vehicle sales dropped precipitously 
from around 16 million in the United States in late 2007 to fewer than 
10.6 million in 2009, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data. 
However, as the economy has begun to recover, U.S. sales have risen, 
reaching 11.8 million in 2010. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 
projects the gross domestic product (GDP) will grow about 3.7 percent 
and 4.4 percent year over year for 2011 and 2012 (in nominal dollars). 
Though these projections are positive, the pace of the economic 
recovery--and, consequently, improvements in vehicles sales--is not 
yet clear. 

* Fuel price volatility: GM and Chrysler continue to rely heavily on 
trucks for their profitability. These vehicles are more profitable per 
unit but because they generally have lower fuel economy than smaller 
vehicles, their popularity among consumers can be affected by fuel 
prices. According to the Energy Information Administration, retail 
gasoline prices increased 22 percent from February 2010 to February 
2011, and an increase in fuel prices such as the one in the first half 
of 2008 could depress demand, and therefore sales, for these larger 
vehicles. Both companies are working to launch smaller, more fuel- 
efficient cars such as the Chevy Cruze for GM and the Fiat 500 for 
Chrysler, but it will take time before sales of the companies' product 
mix overall are less susceptible to higher fuel prices. 

* Product launches: The effective launch of new and refreshed products 
is important to attracting consumers and increasing sales and market 
share. Both companies have launched or plan to launch new products 
this year and next in the United States. GM has launched the Chevy 
Volt, which, according to GM, is the industry's first mass-produced 
extended range electric vehicle, and the Chevy Cruze, its newest entry 
into the compact car market. In 2011, GM officials reported that the 
company plans to launch the Chevrolet Sonic and the Buick Verano--new 
entries into the subcompact and compact car market. Chrysler launched 
production of 16 new and refreshed products in 2010, including the new 
Jeep Grand Cherokee, Dodge Durango and Charger, and the new Fiat 500, 
a "mini" car that is distributed through Chrysler's North American 
dealership network. Industry analysts we spoke with noted that GM and 
Chrysler need to overcome negative perceptions of their brands and 
quality that have persisted for some consumers, despite the companies' 
improvements in quality.[Footnote 24] Both companies will need to 
continue to improve the public's overall perception of them as they 
market their vehicles to consumers. Chrysler's ability to improve the 
public's perception of its products will depend, in part, on its 
relationship with Fiat. As part of its reorganization, Chrysler 
arranged an alliance with Fiat, whereby Fiat contributed intellectual 
property and management services to Chrysler in exchange for 20 
percent of Chrysler's equity. As outlined in Chrysler's amended 
operating agreement, Fiat can increase its ownership in Chrysler an 
additional 15 percent, to 35 percent, in three tranches of 5 percent 
each in exchange for meeting three performance metrics--manufacturing 
state-of-the-art, next-generation engines at a U.S. Chrysler facility; 
introducing a vehicle produced at a Chrysler factory in the United 
States that performs at 40 miles per gallon; and providing Chrysler 
with a distribution network in numerous foreign jurisdictions. In 
January 2011, Fiat achieved the first performance metric when it 
announced that Chrysler would begin production of a 1.4-liter engine 
based on Fiat's Fully Integrated Robotized Engine (FIRE) technology in 
Dundee, Michigan, increasing its ownership from 20 percent to 25 
percent. In April 2011, Fiat further raised its ownership to 30 
percent by achieving its second performance metric when it provided 
Chrysler with a distribution network in Europe and Latin America, 
Chrysler achieved sale revenues of $1.5 billion outside of North 
America, Chrysler and Fiat pooled their vehicle fleets in Europe for 
carbon dioxide emissions ratings, and Fiat agreed to compensate 
Chrysler for use of Chrysler technology outside of North America. 

* Increasing retail sales: In recent years, GM and Chrysler have 
reported selling over 25 percent of their vehicles to entities such as 
rental car companies for their company fleets ("fleet sales") even 
though the companies recognize that selling to individual consumers 
("retail sales") generally yields a higher profit margin. For example, 
in 2010, roughly 30 percent of GM's vehicle sales and 36 percent of 
Chrysler's were fleet sales, primarily to rental car companies. 
[Footnote 25] Rental cars typically end up on the used car market much 
sooner than cars sold to retail customers, which increases the supply 
of these vehicles and depresses the sale price for new vehicles. In 
order for GM and Chrysler to be successful, it will be important for 
them to sell cars that retail consumers want to purchase so that the 
companies do not have to rely as heavily on selling large numbers of 
fleet vehicles at discounted prices.[Footnote 26] 

In addition to these challenges, GM's overseas operations--which have 
become increasingly important to the company's profitability--could 
pose additional challenges. In 2010, GM reported that, through its 
joint ventures in China, it had the largest market share of any 
manufacturer in China in 2010, and for the first time in the company's 
history, GM's vehicle sales in China exceeded its vehicle sales in the 
United States. However, increased competition in the Chinese market 
could affect GM's sales and revenue. GM faces increased competition in 
China as even more companies enter the market, in addition to the 
numerous large and small automakers already competing in the market. 

In comparison to its Chinese operations, GM reported that its European 
operations are currently operating at a net loss and require 
restructuring to become profitable. GM sells vehicles in Western and 
Central Europe under the Chevrolet, Opel, and Vauxhall brands. To 
reduce costs and increase profitability, GM is restructuring the Opel 
and Vauxhall brands brand by consolidating its manufacturing capacity 
and reducing labor costs.[Footnote 27] According to the company, this 
restructuring will cost $4.2 billion. 

Treasury's Timing of Its Exit from GM and Chrysler and Return on 
Investment Will Depend on How It Balances Its Competing Goals: 

Treasury Has Recouped $24 Billion of Its Investments in GM and 
Chrysler through GM's IPO and Other Payments: 

As table 4 shows, Treasury has recouped about $24 billion through GM's 
IPO, GM's purchase of Treasury's preferred stock, and loan repayments 
from GM and Chrysler. The majority of these repayments are from GM, 
and in particular, GM's IPO. In total, Treasury sold over 412 million 
of its shares, representing 45.2 percent of its total shares, for 
which it received $13.5 billion in net proceeds. By selling these 
shares, Treasury decreased its ownership stake in GM from 60.8 percent 
to 33.3 percent and helped to reduce the outstanding balance of its 
investment in GM to about $27 billion.[Footnote 28] As of April 22, 
2011, Chrysler had not made any principal payments on its $5 billion 
debt to Treasury--with the first payment not due until December 2011--
but Treasury received a $1.9 billion loan repayment as part of a 
settlement on one of the loans that it extended to finance old 
Chrysler.[Footnote 29] Treasury's current equity stake in the company 
is 8.6 percent--down from the original 9.85 percent because, as 
previously discussed, Fiat increased its ownership stake by achieving 
two of its three performance-related targets, thereby diluting the 
other members' overall equity, including Treasury's. On April 21, 
2011, Fiat announced that it will exercise its option to acquire an 
incremental 16 percent fully diluted equity interest in Chrysler, 
conditioned upon the full repayment of Chrysler's debt to Treasury and 
the Canadian government and termination of all lending commitments 
under each respective loan agreement. On April 28, 2011, Chrysler 
announced that it intends to repay its debt to the U.S. and Canadian 
governments during the second quarter of 2011 from proceeds of a new 
term loan facility and a debt offering along with the proceeds from 
Fiat's payment for the additional equity. 

Table 4: Status of AIFP Assistance to GM and Chrysler, as of April 28, 
2011: 

Company: GM; 
Total committed: $49.5 billion; 
Repayments and write-offs: 
* April 2010: $6.7 billion loan repaid[B]; 
* November and December 2010: $13.5 billion in IPO proceeds[C]; 
* December 2010: $2.1 billion paid for Treasury's preferred stock; 
Total repayment[A]: $22.5 billion; 
Percent of investment repaid: 45%; 
Outstanding balance: $27.0 billion. 

Company: Chrysler; 
Total committed: 12.5 billion[D]; 
Repayments and write-offs: 
* May 2010: $1.9 billion loan repayment received and $1.6 billion 
written off the loan's face value as part of old Chrysler's settlement 
agreement with Treasury; 
Total repayment[A]: 1.9 billion; 
Percent of investment repaid: 19%; 
Outstanding balance: 7.3 billion[E]. 

Company: Total; 
Total committed: $62 billion; 
Total repayment[A]: $24.4 billion; 
Percent of investment repaid: 41%; 
Outstanding balance: $34.3 billion[F]. 

Source: GAO analysis of Treasury data. 

Note: Totals may not add up because of rounding. 

[A] The repayment amounts do not include interest and dividends 
received from these investments, which totaled $1.3 million, as of 
February 28, 2011. 

[B] GM made this payment using funds that remained in an escrow 
account that was created for the company through the restructuring 
process in the summer of 2009. According to Treasury officials, the 
funds in this account came from a portion of the proceeds of a loan 
made by both Treasury and the Canadian government. 

[C] On November 23, 2010, Treasury received $11.7 billion from selling 
over 358 million shares of common stock in the initial sale, and 
subsequently, on December 2, 2010, it received $1.8 billion for 
approximately 54 million shares of common stock when the IPO 
underwriters exercised the overallotment option on November, 26, 2010. 
An overallotment option is an agreement between an issuer and its 
underwriters granting the underwriters the option to purchase and then 
resell additional shares to the investing public. Usually the 
overallotment option is exercised by the underwriters if the demand 
before and after pricing is strong. 

[D] This amount includes $2.1 billion in undrawn commitments on 
Chrysler's $7.1 billion loan. 

[E] Since Treasury wrote off $1.6 billion from its loan to Chrysler, 
this amount is subtracted from the outstanding balance for Chrysler. 
This outstanding balance is also increased by $0.3 billion in 
capitalized interest. 

[F] Once Chrysler repays its loans to Treasury, the outstanding 
balance for Treasury's investment in Chrysler is reduced to $2.2 
billion, and the total outstanding balance for Treasury's investment 
in both companies is reduced to $29.2 billion. 

[End of table] 

Treasury Has Taken Steps to Protect the Taxpayer's Interest in 
Divesting from GM: 

In preparation for participating in GM's IPO, Treasury hired an 
adviser to provide analysis and support on the disposition of its 
investment, approved the IPO underwriter selection and determined the 
related fees, and published IPO guidance. These actions align with 
some of our previous recommendations to Treasury on managing and 
divesting itself of its investments in GM and Chrysler.[Footnote 30] 
Specifically, Treasury took the following actions: 

* Hired Lazard to provide support in divesting the government's 
interest in GM: We previously recommended that Treasury obtain the 
expertise needed to adequately monitor and divest the government's 
interests in GM and Chrysler. In May 2010, Treasury hired Lazard to 
serve as an adviser on the disposition of Treasury's investment in GM. 
Lazard's support to Treasury included participating in due diligence 
sessions, working with the underwriters to understand potential 
investor demand and price, and analyzing estimates of GM's valuation 
and implied share price ranges. Lazard officials noted that much of 
their analysis and review for Treasury focused on understanding the 
forecasts, accounting assumptions, and sensitivities underlying GM's 
business plan and determining whether the company was appropriately 
valued in advance of the IPO. For example, Lazard assessed key drivers 
of profitability in GM's preliminary business plan, including the 
company's expected revenue growth in its international markets and the 
company's liquidity, debt levels, and pension obligations compared to 
its competitors. 

* Approved the underwriter selection and related fees. As noted in 
Treasury's June 2010 guidance, GM would select the lead underwriters, 
subject to approval by Treasury, and Treasury would determine the 
underwriters' fees. According to Lazard officials, they provided 
support to Treasury to help Treasury determine the right number of 
underwriters, their compensation, and how to use them. The final 
underwriting agreement included 35 underwriters consisting of both 
large and small firms. Treasury negotiated an underwriting fee of 0.75 
percent, which is significantly less than the 2 to 3 percent fee 
normally charged for an IPO of comparable size. 

* Published guidance on Treasury's participation in the GM IPO. We 
previously recommended that Treasury develop criteria for evaluating 
the optimal method and timing for divesting the government's ownership 
stakes in GM and Chrysler. In June 2010, Treasury issued guidance on 
its participation in the IPO. This guidance explained that the timing 
of the IPO would be left to GM and would depend on market conditions 
and other factors and that Treasury would decide whether and at what 
level to participate in the offering. In line with our recommendation, 
in September 2010, Treasury issued additional guidance on requiring GM 
and the underwriters to use their "commercial best efforts" to provide 
access to all investors. Treasury officials noted that guidance was 
issued to give the market confidence that Treasury planned to follow 
an orderly process for exiting the company, consistent with its 
guidance. 

Treasury officials emphasized that Treasury would determine whether to 
offer shares and the amount of shares in GM's IPO, but that the timing 
for the IPO was GM's decision. Nevertheless, Treasury and GM officials 
noted that the timing of GM's IPO was primarily driven by the 
following factors. 

* Window of opportunity: GM and Treasury officials noted that the 
window of opportunity for holding an IPO was limited for a number of 
reasons, including the holiday season late in the year. Treasury 
officials noted that GM first began discussing a potential IPO with 
Treasury in April 2010. According to Treasury and GM officials, in 
early discussions, November was identified as the time frame for 
holding an IPO before the holiday season, which typically sees low- 
volume trading and is therefore not a good time to launch an IPO. 

* Positive financial results and investor demand for auto industry 
shares: GM showed positive financial results in the first 3 quarters 
of 2010, despite historically low industry sales, and the stock market 
was trending positively, including positive trends in shares for Ford 
Motor Company. Treasury officials noted that there was demand for 
investing in the auto industry in the fall and that GM was expecting 
its fourth quarter 2010 results to be weaker than in previous 
quarters. According to an industry expert, scheduling the IPO after 
those results were published could have potentially lowered investor 
demand, since companies generally want to demonstrate positive trends 
when going into an IPO. In advance of the IPO, GM disclosed that, due 
to having a different production mix, new vehicles launch costs (in 
particular, the Chevrolet Cruze and Volt) and higher engineering 
expenses for future products, the company expected to generate 
positive earnings in the fourth quarter of 2010, but at a 
significantly lower level than that of each of the first 3 quarters. 

* Potential effect of new shares offered by old GM bondholders: Under 
old GM's bankruptcy plan, bondholders (unsecured creditors) of old GM 
are entitled to receive 10 percent of new GM's issued common shares 
and warrants that are exercisable for additional common stock. These 
shares will be distributed to old GM bondholders pursuant to the plan 
of reorganization approved by the bankruptcy court. Treasury and GM 
officials noted that they were anticipating the issuance of common 
shares of GM to old GM bondholders sometime in early 2011.[Footnote 
31] Once these bondholders receive their shares, they could start 
trading the shares immediately, potentially affecting pricing of an 
IPO. Therefore, there was interest in holding the IPO before shares 
were issued to these bondholders. 

Treasury's Participation in GM's IPO Highlights Treasury's Competing 
Goals as Shareholder and Government Agency: 

Treasury's participation in GM's IPO reflects the ongoing challenge of 
its competing goals as a shareholder and government agency. As we have 
previously reported, Treasury's general goals of exiting as soon as 
practicable, maximizing return on investment, and improving the 
strength and viability of Chrysler and GM are reasonable, but 
potentially competing. Treasury officials said that they worked to 
balance a number of factors--including price, the potential 
participation of other shareholders, and Treasury's goal to exit its 
investment as soon as practicable--in determining how many shares to 
offer in GM's IPO. Treasury officials said that they strive to balance 
these goals, but do not have a strict formula for doing so; in the 
end, the decision on Treasury's level of participation in GM's IPO was 
a judgment call. In particular, Treasury's auto team recommended to 
the Secretary of the Treasury and the Acting Assistant Secretary for 
Financial Stability the number of Treasury shares to offer in the IPO, 
but the Secretary made the final decision on how many of Treasury's 
shares to offer in the IPO. 

Additionally, since GM and Chrysler began operating as new companies, 
Treasury has stated that it has taken a "hands-off" approach to 
managing the companies, meaning that it does not interfere with their 
day-to-day business decisions. Treasury developed this approach as a 
means to reassure the market of the government's limited intervention 
in the companies. Confirming this approach, Treasury officials did not 
comment on company operating risks identified in preparation for GM's 
IPO because Treasury did not want to opine on the company's issues or 
how to address them. According to GM officials, government involvement 
in GM was among the key issues raised by potential investors during 
the company's road show presentations before the IPO. GM officials 
confirmed that Treasury acted like a typical large shareholder 
throughout the IPO process and has not interfered in company decisions. 

However, Treasury's involvement in certain aspects of GM's IPO 
illustrates the difficulties of balancing its goals of maximizing 
taxpayer return and exiting as quickly as practicable. As the 
following illustrates, Treasury, as a government entity, had to juggle 
sometimes competing interests that a typical, large shareholder (i.e., 
nongovernmental) would not normally confront. 

* Share price: GM officials noted that Treasury, as a seller, was 
particularly interested in maximizing the IPO share price and avoiding 
a significant increase in the share price immediately following the 
IPO.[Footnote 32] A significant increase in the post-IPO share price 
could suggest that the IPO share price was too low--that is, the 
company could have offered the shares at a higher price. According to 
Treasury officials, Treasury participated in a number of discussions 
about the share price before the IPO and worked to maximize the share 
price without eroding demand for the shares. According to GM 
officials, Treasury focused on ensuring that the price would generate 
sufficient demand during the IPO, but not lead to a significant 
increase or "pop" in price in the following days. Such an increase 
could have exposed Treasury to criticism that it had "left money on 
the table"--that is, it did not secure adequate value for its shares. 
However, in the month following the IPO, GM's shares traded within 
roughly $1 of the IPO share price, with the average share price around 
$34.03, or 3 percent above the IPO price. According to Treasury 
officials, the post-IPO share price performance demonstrates that the 
IPO was appropriately priced to maximize the initial return. 

* Number of Treasury shares offered: Although Treasury could have 
postponed the sale of its shares, waiting for a potentially higher 
share price, Treasury officials said that they stand behind their 
participation in GM's IPO and the number of shares that Treasury 
offered for several reasons. First, Treasury officials said that it 
was important to signal to the market that the government intended to 
exit its investment. Although Treasury officials noted that they did 
not particularly emphasize bringing Treasury's ownership stake below 
50 percent through the IPO, they pointed out that Treasury did not 
have to offer many shares to bring its ownership stake under this 
threshold. Second, Treasury wanted to capitalize on the high level of 
investor interest in the auto industry that developed throughout 2010 
and avoid uncertain market conditions going into 2011. For example, 
share prices for Ford Motor Company rose almost 50 percent from the 
end of August 2010 through November 17, 2010--the day of GM's IPO. 
Third, as previously noted, Treasury expressed concern that old GM 
bondholders could potentially disrupt the pricing process if those 
shareholders gained control of their shares before an IPO, leading to 
a dilution of Treasury's shares. 

* IPO guidance: Treasury's IPO guidance reflects Treasury's unique 
position as a U.S. government shareholder of a private company. For 
example, Treasury's September 2010 guidance stressed focusing on North 
American investors and not allowing a single investor or group of 
investors to purchase a disproportionate share of GM shares, 
reflecting the agency's awareness of potential criticisms about the 
types of investors that had access to GM's IPO. According to Treasury 
and Lazard officials, Lazard compared GM's IPO with that of other 
large IPOs, including the potential investor mix, as information on 
the prospective demand for participation in GM's IPO became available. 
[Footnote 33] According to Lazard officials, this analysis showed that 
the investor mix of retail and other investors for GM's IPO was 
comparable to that of other large IPOs. According to the former senior 
adviser of Treasury's auto team and other Treasury officials, GM and 
the underwriters adhered to Treasury's guidance on the investor mix 
for GM's IPO.[Footnote 34] 

Treasury's unique position as a government shareholder also makes it 
difficult for Treasury to be transparent about its strategy for 
divesting from GM, including the actions Treasury took in preparation 
for GM's IPO. This position also makes it challenging to assess 
Treasury's oversight of and investment in GM and Chrysler. Although 
Treasury has outlined goals to guide the management of its investments 
in the companies, it did not publicly divulge details on the 
development of its strategy for GM's IPO, such as how many shares it 
considered offering in the IPO, given that these details could have 
affected market conditions for the IPO and potentially affected the 
government's ability to recover its investment. To achieve the maximum 
return for taxpayers, Treasury officials said they do not plan to 
disclose more information than is necessary about their strategy for 
divesting Treasury's remaining ownership interests. As we have 
previously reported, Treasury should seek to be as transparent as 
possible about its strategy, including identifying what information 
can and should be made public and indicating how it plans to balance 
concerns about the public's "need to know" against those about 
disclosing proprietary information in a competitive market. However, 
while we recognize the need to strike a balance between the value of 
transparency and the need to avoid compromising the competitive 
positions for GM and Chrysler, to the extent possible, transparency 
about Treasury's strategy is important to ensure accountability and 
assure taxpayers that their investment is being appropriately 
safeguarded. 

The Timing of Treasury's Exit from GM and Chrysler and the Extent to 
Which Treasury Will Recoup Its Investment Depends on How Treasury 
Balances Its Competing Goals: 

Treasury continues to monitor GM's and Chrysler's performance, and 
according to Treasury officials, they have developed a strategy for 
divesting its remaining interest in GM and all of its interest in 
Chrysler and will disclose their strategy at the appropriate time. As 
outlined in the underwriting agreement, Treasury is not allowed to 
release any new GM shares into the market until 180 days after the 
IPO, or May 2011 at the earliest. GM officials noted that it will be 
up to the shareholders, including Treasury, to determine when, how 
many, and at what price to offer their remaining shares. By contrast, 
GM determined the timing of GM's IPO, while the share price range was 
established through discussions among GM, the underwriters, Treasury, 
and other shareholders. According to a senior Treasury official, until 
the 180-day lock-up period expires, it is premature for Treasury to 
set a timetable to divest its remaining interest in GM, given that its 
strategy will depend on business and market conditions, among other 
factors, at that time. However, Treasury has different options to 
consider in divesting its remaining interest in GM, such as whether to 
hold another offering or sell shares over a period of time--as it did 
when it sold its Citigroup, Inc., common stock.[Footnote 35] According 
to Treasury officials, they are determining the appropriate strategy 
for disposing of Treasury's remaining investment in GM and noted that 
such a strategy would be affected by market conditions, among other 
things, after the 180-day lock-up period ends. 

Following GM's IPO, Wall Street analysts were generally positive about 
the prospects of GM's value in the following 6 to 18 months, but GM's 
share price will have to increase over 60 percent from the IPO share 
price to an average of over $54 for Treasury to fully recoup its 
investment in GM. Such an increase is not predicted to occur over the 
next year. We estimated prior to the IPO, that Treasury would need an 
average share price of about $45 to fully recoup its investment in GM, 
whereas Treasury received $33 per share in the IPO.[Footnote 36] After 
taking into account Treasury's proceeds from the IPO, we estimate that 
Treasury will need an average share price of about $54 across all 
offerings for its remaining GM shares. As figure 2 shows, as of April 
26, 2011, GM's share price has traded well below that range--from 
about $30 to $39. Although Wall Street analysts are predicting 
positive trends, the share price target estimates that these analysts 
made after the company's fourth quarter 2010 earnings announcement--
showing a $37 to $50 share price target over roughly a 6-to 18-month 
period--are well below the price that Treasury would need to fully 
recoup its investment. Additionally, for each share sold below $54, 
the threshold for the remaining investment increases, thus suggesting 
that Treasury will have difficulty fully recouping its investment if 
it plans to exit its remaining interest in GM within the next year. 

Figure 2: GM Share Price for November 18, 2010, through April 26, 
2011, and the Pre-and Post-IPO GM Share Price Needed to Fully Recoup 
Treasury's Investment: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Date: 11/18/2010; 
GM closing share price: $34.19; 
Pre-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $45; 
Post-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $54. 

Date: 11/25/2010; 
GM closing share price: $33.48; 
Pre-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $45; 
Post-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $54. 

Date: 12/2/2010; 
GM closing share price: $34.68; 
Pre-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $45; 
Post-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $54. 

Date: 12/9/2010; 
GM closing share price: $33.74; 
Pre-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $45; 
Post-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $54. 

Date: 12/16/2010; 
GM closing share price: $33.61; 
Pre-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $45; 
Post-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $54. 

Date: 12/23/2010; 
GM closing share price: $34.81; 
Pre-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $45; 
Post-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $54. 

Date: 12/30/2010; 
GM closing share price: $36.82; 
Pre-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $45; 
Post-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $54. 

Date: 1/6/2011; 
GM closing share price: $38.9; 
Pre-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $45; 
Post-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $54. 

Date: 1/13/2011; 
GM closing share price: $38.27; 
Pre-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $45; 
Post-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $54. 

Date: 1/20/2011; 
GM closing share price: $37.18; 
Pre-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $45; 
Post-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $54. 

Date: 1/27/2011; 
GM closing share price: $38.67; 
Pre-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $45; 
Post-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $54. 

Date: 2/3/2011; 
GM closing share price: $36.06; 
Pre-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $45; 
Post-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $54. 

Date: 2/10/2011; 
GM closing share price: $35.88; 
Pre-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $45; 
Post-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $54. 

Date: 2/17/2011; 
GM closing share price: $36.37; 
Pre-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $45; 
Post-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $54. 

Date: 2/24/2011; 
GM closing share price: $33.02; 
Pre-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $45; 
Post-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $54. 

Date: 3/3/2011; 
GM closing share price: $33.03; 
Pre-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $45; 
Post-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $54. 

Date: 3/10/2011; 
GM closing share price: $31.42; 
Pre-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $45; 
Post-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $54. 

Date: 3/17/2011; 
GM closing share price: $31.44; 
Pre-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $45; 
Post-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $54. 

Date: 3/24/2011; 
GM closing share price: $31.39; 
Pre-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $45; 
Post-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $54. 

Date: 3/31/2011; 
GM closing share price: $31.03; 
Pre-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $45; 
Post-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $54. 

Date: 4/7/2011; 
GM closing share price: $32.31; 
Pre-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $45; 
Post-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $54. 

Date: 4/14/2011; 
GM closing share price: $30.58; 
Pre-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $45; 
Post-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $54. 

Date: 4/26/2011; 
GM closing share price: $31.27; 
Pre-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $45; 
Post-IPO share price to fully recoup Treasury’s investment: $54. 

Source: Datastream and GAO analysis. 

[End of figure] 

Treasury's options for divesting its stake in Chrysler differ from 
those it had for GM, given the type and amount of Treasury's 
investment in Chrysler. Chrysler officials confirmed that the company 
is considering a potential IPO, but not before the second half of 
2011, subject to approval from the board of directors, and depending 
on economic and equity market conditions, and that the company was 
looking to establish a performance track record that is longer than a 
couple of quarters in order to gain credibility and build trust in the 
marketplace. Because the majority of Treasury's investment in Chrysler 
was through loans, Treasury officials noted that Treasury's exit 
strategy for Chrysler depends on Chrysler's repayment of its loans 
from Treasury. As previously noted, Chrysler recently announced that 
it intends to repay its loans to Treasury during the second quarter of 
2011, subject to market and other conditions. The government's equity 
stake in Chrysler is much smaller than in GM--roughly 9 percent versus 
about 61 percent and 33 percent before and after GM's IPO, 
respectively. According to Treasury officials, Treasury could 
potentially sell its equity stake to a third party, depending on 
market conditions. Treasury's exit strategy for Chrysler could also be 
complicated by the other Chrysler shareholders--Fiat, UAW VEBA, and 
the Canadian government--since these shareholders may have different 
interests and incentives, as well as more influence over the IPO 
process than Treasury.[Footnote 37] For example, as previously noted, 
Fiat announced that once Chrysler's loans from Treasury and the 
Canadian government are repaid, the company is exercising its option 
to acquire up to an additional 16 percent fully diluted equity 
interest in Chrysler, which, along with achieving the third 
performance target, would increase its ownership in Chrysler to over 
50 percent and could give Fiat more influence over the timing of 
Chrysler's IPO. 

Additionally, Chrysler's equity will have to grow appreciably in order 
to reach the value at which Treasury would recover the entire equity 
investment in the company. We estimated that Chrysler would need a 
market capitalization of about $41 billion for Treasury to earn enough 
on the sale of its equity to fully recoup its investment in Chrysler. 
[Footnote 38] As a point of reference for these values, in 1997, the 
last year Chrysler was a publicly traded company, its market 
capitalization value ranged between $23.1 billion and $31.7 billion, 
and in 1998, when it merged with Daimler, its estimated value was $37 
billion.[Footnote 39] Also, as the Congressional Oversight Panel 
reported, for Treasury to recover all of the funds that it has 
invested in both old and new Chrysler, all of Chrysler's loans would 
have to be repaid and Treasury's equity stake would have to yield at 
least $3.5 billion to make up for the losses to date.[Footnote 40] 

In January 2011, Treasury modified its agreement with Lazard to retain 
its support in disposing of Treasury's remaining investments in GM and 
Chrysler. As we previously reported, it is critical for Treasury to 
employ or contract with individuals with experience managing and 
selling equity in private companies to provide advice and expertise on 
the oversight and sale of Treasury's equity investments. According to 
Treasury and Lazard officials, Lazard analyzed the expected 
distribution of shares to old GM bondholders, given that this 
distribution of shares may result in changes to the market for GM's 
shares. Lazard also continues to provide Treasury with information on 
the financial performance for GM, Chrysler, and Ford, and overall 
stock market performance. According to Treasury and Lazard officials, 
Lazard is examining various disposition strategies relating to 
Treasury's stake in Chrysler, including an analysis of Chrysler's 
ability to repay debt under various scenarios, such as accessing debt 
markets or a Department of Energy loan to support its advanced 
technology vehicle program, among other options. 

Treasury's divestment strategy for its GM and Chrysler investments-- 
including the timing of Treasury's exits and the extent to which it 
will recoup its investments--will depend on how Treasury balances its 
goals of maximizing taxpayer return and exiting as soon as 
practicable. For example, GM's share price will have to grow 
significantly for Treasury to approach fully recouping its investment 
in the near term. Otherwise, Treasury will have to temper any desire 
to exit as quickly as possible with the need to maintain its ownership 
interest long enough for the company to demonstrate sufficient 
financial progress. However, Treasury's goal of exiting its 
investments as soon as practicable could lead it to choose a speedier 
exit at the expense of a fuller recovery of its investments. We 
previously reported that Treasury would have to address the inherent 
trade-offs between these goals in developing its exit strategy. 
[Footnote 41] Treasury officials noted that they continue to balance 
these goals as they develop their divestment strategies for GM and 
Chrysler as market conditions and other events unfold. Given the 
fluidity of conditions and the number of factors that will need to be 
considered when determining how and when to divest, it will be 
important for Treasury to analyze and consider all options as it 
weighs its goals of maximizing taxpayers' return and exiting its 
investments as soon as practicable. 

Council Established to Help Auto Communities Has Not Demonstrated the 
Results of Its Efforts: 

For Auto Communities, Plant Closures Added to Employment, Housing, and 
Environmental Challenges: 

Though restructuring allowed GM and Chrysler to remain in business, 
and therefore benefited communities in which the companies retained 
manufacturing plants and employees, communities in which plants were 
idled or closed experienced economic challenges in addition to those 
they already faced. As previously mentioned, GM and Chrysler 
restructured their costs partly by closing manufacturing plants, and 
between 2008 and 2010, the companies closed or halted production at 22 
plants (16 GM plants and 6 Chrysler plants), 15 of which were located 
in the Midwest (see figure 3). 

Figure 3: GM and Chrysler Plants Closed or Idled in 2008-2010 
Restructuring: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated map of the Eastern U.S.] 

GM plant closures and idlings: 
Massena, New York, Castings (2009); 
Flint North, Michigan, Engine (2008); 
Flint North, Michigan, Components (Powertrain) (2010); 
Grand Rapids, Michigan, Stamping (2009); 
Janesville, Wisconsin, Assembly (2008); 
Pontiac, Michigan, Assembly (2009); 
Livonia, Michigan, Powertrain (2010); 
Parma, Ohio, Components (Powertrain) (2010); 
Willow Run, Michigan, Powertrain (2010); 
Wilmington, Delaware, Assembly (2009); 
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Stamping (2008); 
Fredericksburg, Virginia, Components (Powertrain) (2010); 
Mansfield, Ohio, Stamping (2010); 
Moraine, Ohio, Assembly (2008); 
Spring Hill, Tennessee, Assembly (2009)[A]; 
Doraville, Georgia, Assembly and Stamping (2008). 

Chrysler plant closures and idlings: 
Kenosha, Wisconsin, Engine Plant (2010); 
Newark, Delaware, Assembly (2008); 
St. Louis North, Missouri, Assembly (2009); 
St. Louis South, Missouri, Assembly (2008); 
Conner Avenue, Michigan, Assembly Plant (2010)[A]; 
Twinsburg, Ohio, Stamping (2010). 

Sources: GAO presentation of GM and Chrysler data and Map Resources 
(map). 

[A] Chrysler's Conner Avenue Assembly Plant in Detroit, Michigan, GM's 
Spring Hill Assembly Plant in Spring Hill, Tennessee, and GM's 
Janesville Assembly Plan in Janesville, Wisconsin, are currently 
idled. Production at these facilities has stopped, but they are not 
officially closed. 

[End of figure] 

Of the six communities we visited where GM or Chrysler closed or idled 
a plant as part of its recent restructuring, five had unemployment 
rates prior to the closure that were already higher than the national 
average or the average rates in their respective states, and 
unemployment in all six worsened in the years following the closure 
(see table 5).[Footnote 42] One of the worst-hit communities was 
Detroit, where the reported unemployment rate increased nearly 80 
percent from October 2007 through October 2010, reaching 13.3 percent--
exceeding Michigan's average of 12 percent and the national average of 
9.0 percent over the same time period. Nashville was the only 
community we visited where the reported unemployment rate was lower 
than both the state average and the national average during this 
period. This could be because Spring Hill, the town where a GM plant 
is located, is only a part of the Nashville metropolitan area, and 
other parts of the metropolitan area fared better, such as Franklin, 
Tennessee, where Nissan's North American headquarters is located. 
Spring Hill officials reported that suppliers to non-GM auto 
companies, such as Nissan, are fairly healthy. Nevertheless, 
unemployment in the Nashville metropolitan area increased as well, 
nearly doubling over this period. 

Table 5: Unemployment Rate before and after Restructuring in Case 
Study Communities, States, and the Nation: 

State/community: Delaware; 
Rate in October 2007: 3.5%; 
Rate in October 2010: 8.1%; 
Percent change between October 2007 and October 2010: 131.4%. 

State/community: Delaware; Wilmington; 
Rate in October 2007: 3.7%; 
Rate in October 2010: 8.4%; 
Percent change between October 2007 and October 2010: 127.0%. 

State/community: Michigan; 
Rate in October 2007: 6.6%; 
Rate in October 2010: 12.0%; 
Percent change between October 2007 and October 2010: 81.8%. 

State/community: Michigan; Detroit; 
Rate in October 2007: 7.5%; 
Rate in October 2010: 13.3%; 
Percent change between October 2007 and October 2010: 77.3%. 

State/community: Michigan; Flint; 
Rate in October 2007: 7.4%; 
Rate in October 2010: 13.0%; 
Percent change between October 2007 and October 2010: 75.7%. 

State/community: Ohio; 
Rate in October 2007: 5.2%; 
Rate in October 2010: 9.5%; 
Percent change between October 2007 and October 2010: 82.7%. 

State/community: Ohio; Dayton/Moraine; 
Rate in October 2007: 5.5%; 
Rate in October 2010: 10.4%; 
Percent change between October 2007 and October 2010: 89.1%. 

State/community: Ohio; Mansfield; 
Rate in October 2007: 5.9%; 
Rate in October 2010: 10.9%; 
Percent change between October 2007 and October 2010: 84.7%. 

State/community: Tennessee; 
Rate in October 2007: 4.9%; 
Rate in October 2010: 9.1%; 
Percent change between October 2007 and October 2010: 85.7%. 

State/community: Tennessee; Nashville/Spring Hill; 
Rate in October 2007: 4.2%; 
Rate in October 2010: 8.3%; 
Percent change between October 2007 and October 2010: 97.6%. 

Nation: 
Rate in October 2007: 4.4%; 
Rate in October 2010: 9.0%; 
Percent change between October 2007 and October 2010: 104.5%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data. 

[End of table] 

According to housing price index data from the Federal Housing Finance 
Agency, housing prices also generally deteriorated in the years 
following a plant closure. From October 2007 through October 2010, 
housing prices in metropolitan areas of five of the six communities we 
visited declined at least as fast as or faster than housing prices in 
the states where the communities are located (see table 6).[Footnote 
43] For instance, housing prices in the metropolitan areas around 
Detroit and Flint dropped roughly twice as fast between the third 
quarter of 2007 and the third quarter of 2008 as housing prices in 
Michigan--a decline of 14 percent and 12 percent for the communities, 
compared with a statewide decline of 6.6 percent. 

Table 6: Percentage Change in Housing Price Index (HPI) Compared with 
the Third Quarter of the Previous Year for the Years before, during, 
and after Restructuring in the Metropolitan Areas of the Case Study 
Communities and States: 

Delaware; 
HPI 2006-2007 Q3: 1.89%; 
HPI 2007-2008 Q3: -3.51%; 
HPI 2009-2010 Q3: -2.28%; 
HPI 2007-2010 Q3: -10.5%. 

Wilmington; 
HPI 2006-2007 Q3: 1.75%; 
HPI 2007-2008 Q3: -3.59%; 
HPI 2009-2010 Q3: -2.77%; 
HPI 2007-2010 Q3: -10.5%. 

Ohio; 
HPI 2006-2007 Q3: -0.65%; 
HPI 2007-2008 Q3: -2.24%; 
HPI 2009-2010 Q3: -0.26%; 
HPI 2007-2010 Q3: -3.6%. 

Mansfield; 
HPI 2006-2007 Q3: -3.54%; 
HPI 2007-2008 Q3: -3.78%; 
HPI 2009-2010 Q3: -8.89%; 
HPI 2007-2010 Q3: -11.1%. 

Dayton/Moraine; 
HPI 2006-2007 Q3: -0.4%; 
HPI 2007-2008 Q3: -0.95%; 
HPI 2009-2010 Q3: -0.99%; 
HPI 2007-2010 Q3: -3.2%. 

Michigan; 
HPI 2006-2007 Q3: -4.34%; 
HPI 2007-2008 Q3: -6.63%; 
HPI 2009-2010 Q3: -2.7%; 
HPI 2007-2010 Q3: -14.7%. 

Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn; 
HPI 2006-2007 Q3: -7.85%; 
HPI 2007-2008 Q3: -13.93%; 
HPI 2009-2010 Q3: -3.7%; 
HPI 2007-2010 Q3: -25.2%. 

Flint; 
HPI 2006-2007 Q3: -6.14%; 
HPI 2007-2008 Q3: -12.24%; 
HPI 2009-2010 Q3: -6.8%; 
HPI 2007-2010 Q3: -25.9%. 

Tennessee; 
HPI 2006-2007 Q3: 4.6%; 
HPI 2007-2008 Q3: 0.14%; 
HPI 2009-2010 Q3: -1.2%; 
HPI 2007-2010 Q3: -2.0%. 

Nashville/Spring Hill; 
HPI 2006-2007 Q3: 5.22%; 
HPI 2007-2008 Q3: -0.1%; 
HPI 2009-2010 Q3: -0.84%; 
HPI 2007-2010 Q3: -2.9%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Federal Housing Finance Agency data. 

Note: The housing price index data track the average housing prices at 
the metropolitan area and may not reflect the housing prices at the 
smaller constituent counties, such as auto communities, within the 
metropolitan area. 

[End of table] 

Closing automotive plants also created properties called brownfields, 
whose reuse or redevelopment may be hindered by the threat of 
contamination.[Footnote 44] Brownfields present additional and unique 
economic challenges for communities and, as we previously reported, 
are potentially harmful to residents' heath and reduce local tax 
bases.[Footnote 45] Before a closed automotive plant can be 
redeveloped or used again, contamination must be assessed and a plan 
for remediation or clean-up must be established, a process that can 
make it more difficult for communities trying to attract new employers 
into shuttered plants. Among the communities we visited, Flint 
reported that it has been disproportionately affected by brownfield 
issues, since it has lost four major automotive plants in the last 20 
years in addition to the two that closed in the recent restructuring. 
As a result, Flint has the unique challenge of cleaning up and 
redeveloping more brownfields--reportedly more than 1,000 acres--than 
any other community in the country. 

Federal Funding Assistance Was Targeted Mainly to Unemployed Workers, 
and Federal Support for Community Economic Development Has Been 
Limited: 

Much of the federal assistance that the communities we visited 
received was reportedly targeted to individuals recently laid off from 
auto plants and most officials said that it was secured without the 
assistance of the Council. According to community officials, this 
assistance came primarily through Department of Labor resources, such 
as funding provided through the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) 
Dislocated Workers Program, Trade Adjustment Assistance, and National 
Emergency Grants programs. 

* Dislocated Workers Program: This program provides funding for 
employment and training services to help individuals find and qualify 
for employment. Laid-off autoworkers can qualify as dislocated workers 
because this term includes those who have been "terminated or laid off 
or received notification of termination or layoff from employment as a 
result of a permanent closure or substantial layoff." 

* Trade Adjustment Assistance: This program helps workers who have 
lost their jobs as a result of international trade. 

* National Emergency Grants: These grants temporarily increase the 
funding for Dislocated Worker training and employment programs at the 
state and local levels by providing funding assistance in response to 
large, unexpected economic events that cause significant job losses, 
such as those experienced in the auto industry. 

All six communities we visited reported accessing these Department of 
Labor programs, which were supplemented by Recovery Act funds in 2009 
and 2010.[Footnote 46] For example, Spring Hill, Tennessee, officials 
reported using National Emergency Grant and other Department of Labor 
funds to develop training programs for workers laid off from the 
former GM plant in the area, as well as for those laid off from 
companies that supplied the plant. According to a workforce training 
organization in Spring Hill, officials there used WIA dollars in part 
to fund a job readiness certificate program, which included training 
in math and English. A community college near Detroit reported 
receiving Department of Labor funds to retrain laid-off workers, 
including those from automotive plants, for work in new fields, such 
as defense. 

In addition to receiving support for workers, community officials 
noted that federal assistance is available to help with the clean-up 
and redevelopment of old plants. In all six communities we visited, a 
plant had closed since 2008, and the community had to address the 
resulting brownfield. Two funding sources that communities identified 
as providing potential assistance with the remediation and 
redevelopment of brownfields are the Environmental Protection Agency's 
(EPA) Brownfields Program, which provides grants for environmental 
assessment, cleanup, and related job training activities, and an 
approximately $772 million trust created by old GM--with TARP 
assistance--in which funds will be set aside to clean up and repurpose 
89 properties that were closed in GM's restructuring (see sidebar). 
[Footnote 47] EPA Brownfields Program funds have been available, but 
old GM trust funds only recently became available after the bankruptcy 
court signed an order approving old GM's bankruptcy on March 29, 2011. 
One community--Flint--reported receiving assistance through the EPA 
Brownfields Program to remediate possible contamination at Buick City, 
a plant that GM closed in the 1990s, prior to the recent restructuring. 

Side bar: 

Old GM Environmental Cleanup Trust: 

[Figure: Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

GM's assembly plant in Moraine, Ohio, in 2010, approximately 2 years 
after GM closed it in restructuring. In the first quarter of 2011, GM 
signed a sale agreement with a company to purchase the plant. 

On October 2010, Motors Liquidation Corporation (old GM) reached an 
agreement with the United States, 14 states, and the St. Regis Mohawk 
Tribe to establish a trust to clean up and repurpose 89 properties in 
the 14 states that were closed in GM’s restructuring. The Trustee, a 
former Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response 
at EPA, will oversee the administration of the funds and work with 
local communities when selling or repurposing the old GM plants. $431
million will be provided to remediate specific old GM sites in 14 
states. Two-thirds of these sites are known to be contaminated with 
hazardous waste. The bankruptcy plan was approved in March 2011, and 
states are expected to receive the following amounts: 

State: Delaware; 
Expected funding from the trust and old GM: $11,728,473. 

State: Illinois; 
Expected funding from the trust and old GM: $5,258,489. 

State: Indiana; 
Expected funding from the trust and old GM: $25,174,482. 

State: Kansas; 
Expected funding from the trust and old GM: $4,786,321. 

State: Massachusetts; 
Expected funding from the trust and old GM: $2,325,836. 

State: Michigan; 
Expected funding from the trust and old GM: $158,698,888. 

State: Missouri; 
Expected funding from the trust and old GM: $1,724,806. 

State: New Jersey; 
Expected funding from the trust and old GM: $24,708,069. 

State: New York; 
Expected funding from the trust and old GM: $153,864,758. 

State: Ohio; 
Expected funding from the trust and old GM: $39,394,990. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Expected funding from the trust and old GM: $3,299,231. 

State: Virginia; 
Expected funding from the trust and old GM: $25,922. 

State: Wisconsin; 
Expected funding from the trust and old GM: $210,857. 

Total site-specific payments: 
Expected funding from the trust and old GM: $431,201,122. 

Source: White House press release. 

[End of table] 

[End of side bar] 

Council Provided Communities with Information on Funding and Contacts 
but Has Not Maintained Data to Demonstrate the Results of Its Efforts: 

To date, the Council has focused primarily on portions of two of the 
four functions established for it in the executive order--coordinating 
the efforts and support of federal agencies to ensure a coordinated 
federal response to issues that affect auto communities and workers. 
These functions have been carried out primarily by the Department of 
Labor's Auto Recovery Office, which provides staff for the Council 
(referred to as the Council staff). To date, the Council has not made 
recommendations to the President, and it is not clear to what extent 
staff have advised the President on legislation or policy proposals. 
As outlined in the executive order, the Council is set to expire on 
June 23, 2011, unless extended by the President, but the Department of 
Labor's fiscal year 2012 budget request includes funding for the Auto 
Recovery Office's efforts to target strategies and resources for 
revitalizing jobs for auto workers and communities, though it does not 
state any specific plans for the office's activities. 

As part of their efforts to ensure a coordinated federal response, the 
Council members and staff visited auto communities around the country 
and connected them to the appropriate federal agencies and resources. 
For example, from May 2009 through June 2010, the Council held 
"listening sessions" in 11 communities that had been affected by the 
decline in the auto industry.[Footnote 48] Council staff, including 
the former director, were often accompanied at these sessions by 
cabinet-level Council members such as the EPA Administrator and the 
Secretary of Labor, whose agencies offer programs with the potential 
to assist auto communities. Additionally, in each community, Council 
staff met with local officials to understand the key challenges facing 
the community and to inform them of and connect them to an appropriate 
federal program or individual. The Council reported that the problems 
they heard about most often involved jobs, land use, and difficulties 
maintaining services in the face of budget shortfalls. A specific 
Council staff member was assigned to each auto community and state to 
represent the Council and to serve as the point person for each auto 
community. These staff members responded to their assigned 
communities' needs, such as by providing technical assistance or 
identifying contacts, and continued to connect the communities to 
resources and individuals as appropriate. In May 2010, the Council 
released its first annual report outlining what it had done to help 
auto communities affected by restructuring.[Footnote 49] At the same 
time, to coincide with the release of this report, the Council co-
sponsored a summit titled "Auto Communities and the Next Economy: 
Partnerships in Innovation" with the Brookings Institution 
Metropolitan Policy Program, the Department of Labor, and the Funders' 
Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities on the challenges 
facing auto communities. 

Community officials we interviewed said that the Council brought 
federal attention to auto communities, but four of the six communities 
noted that they did not receive additional federal assistance, as they 
might have expected. For instance, Detroit officials reported that, 
although the Council's efforts highlighted the challenges facing auto 
communities and improved relationships between city and federal 
entities, these efforts did not result in additional funding for the 
city. Officials in Dayton and Nashville/Spring Hill agreed, stating 
that the Council's focus on them resulted in increased federal 
attention but not increased federal assistance to their regions. These 
comments suggest that some community officials may have believed that 
the Council had the ability to provide funding. However, officials in 
two of the six communities did attribute their receipt of federal 
funds to the Council. In particular, officials in Flint told us that 
the Council was instrumental in helping them qualify for a $6.7 
million grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to hire or 
maintain firefighters, and an official in Dayton/Moraine reported that 
they received a National Emergency Grant a few weeks after the Council 
visited the community. 

Though the Council was not established to provide funding directly to 
communities and does not have a program budget to do so, its press 
releases and annual report may have led some communities to believe 
that they would receive financial assistance from the Council. For 
example, the Council has published 100 press releases on its Web site 
announcing Administration activities that may have assisted automotive 
communities, including federal funds awarded to auto communities, such 
as Recovery Act and Department of Energy grants. One of these press 
releases was an announcement that a "landmark federal framework to 
speed the cleanup of and redevelopment of shuttered auto facilities" 
would make more than $800 million available for environmental cleanup 
at old GM sites. However, the Council was not responsible for securing 
these funds. Rather, the available funds were part of the TARP funding 
provided by Treasury in 2009 for expenses related to the liquidation 
of old GM. More specifically, as part of GM's bankruptcy settlement, 
the budget for winding down old GM, which the bankruptcy court 
approved in 2009, included approximately $773 million for 
environmental cleanup. This budget is part of old GM's bankruptcy 
plan, which was recently confirmed by the bankruptcy court. The 
Council's May 2010 annual report includes similar announcements and 
states that the Council, along with its member agencies, "marshaled 
Recovery Act and other federal funds" for auto communities in areas 
such as high-speed rail, health care services, and education, totaling 
billions of dollars. The report also states that the Council "cuts red 
tape," suggesting it can eliminate certain bureaucratic hurdles for 
communities, though when we interviewed Council staff they said that 
communities had to go through the same application and qualification 
processes as other communities. 

The Council's May 2010 annual report cites various federal programs 
that have helped auto communities, but neither the Council nor its 
staff in the Auto Recovery Office systematically tracks, measures, or 
assesses the Council's assistance to the communities. For example, 
they have not kept an inventory of assistance that it has provided or 
funding it has helped communities secure, analyzed the inventory for 
trends, and published the results of their analysis. Consequently, it 
is difficult to identify the assistance the Council and its staff have 
provided. Council staff stated that they keep informal records of in- 
person meetings with auto communities, such as the 2009 and 2010 
listening sessions, but do not routinely review or categorize these 
records. Furthermore, the Council itself provides no resources or 
direct assistance to the affected communities, but according to 
Council staff, the Council acts as a liaison to coordinate the 
responses of the individual member agencies that retain full 
responsibility and authority for their activities and, though the 
Council has published many press releases and an annual report, 
Council staff told us they do not want to take credit for any federal 
assistance awarded to auto communities and are reluctant to track or 
measure the outcomes of the Council's assistance as something separate 
and discrete. We have previously reported that federal agencies 
engaged in collaborative efforts--like the multi-agency response to 
auto community issues coordinated by the Council--need to create the 
means to monitor and evaluate their efforts so that they can identify 
areas for improvement.[Footnote 50] However, without tracking or 
measuring the assistance it has provided to communities or 
systematically reviewing this information to identify common concerns 
or themes, the Council is neither monitoring nor evaluating its 
efforts and will have difficulty identifying areas for improvement and 
corresponding recommendations. 

While the Council, through its staff, has worked to identify the needs 
of auto communities and put community officials in touch with federal 
contacts and programs--efforts that could generally be described as 
coordinating the efforts and support of federal agencies on auto 
community issues--the Council has not fulfilled the remaining two 
primary functions outlined in the executive order. Specifically, it 
has not advised the President on the effects of legislative and policy 
proposals on auto communities or provided recommendations to the 
President on changes to federal policies and programs that could 
benefit auto communities. According to Council staff, they have not 
yet seen trends in concerns or needs across auto communities that 
could be addressed with a uniform policy or program change, but that 
some common needs may emerge as their work continues. Furthermore, in 
their view, changes to individual specific programs are most 
appropriately addressed by the responsible agencies. In addition, they 
noted that they are unlikely to make recommendations to the President 
while the Council is without an executive director. The executive 
director resigned in August 2010, and, as of April 2011, the President 
had not appointed anyone to fill this position. The Council has 
contracted with the Center for Automotive Research to produce a report 
on lessons learned from communities in which a major auto facility has 
closed during the last 30 years. It is possible that recommendations, 
such as successful strategies for redeveloping closed plants or for 
identifying the most effective types of federal assistance, could 
emerge from this report, which is due to the Council by August 2011. 

Conclusions: 

With the help of billions of federal dollars, GM and Chrysler have 
reported improved financial conditions, earning profits for the first 
time in several years. As the companies' financial condition has 
improved, Treasury has taken steps to recoup the federal assistance 
provided, most notably recouping more than $13 billion in GM's IPO. 
Nevertheless, Treasury still has roughly $34 billion invested in GM 
and Chrysler and thus will have to continue to monitor the companies 
and the markets to identify possible divestment strategies that strike 
the right balance between Treasury's competing goals of maximizing 
taxpayers' return and exiting as soon as practicable. We previously 
recommended that Treasury develop criteria for identifying the optimal 
method and time for divesting the government's ownership, and we were 
pleased to see that Treasury took some key steps toward doing this for 
the initial GM divestment, such as issuing guidance on GM's IPO and 
hiring Lazard to conduct company, industry, and market analysis and 
generally help the department secure an appropriate price for its 
shares. Now, with the majority of Treasury's total investment in the 
two companies still outstanding, it is even more important that 
Treasury carefully and critically identify and weigh its options, 
given that industry analysts see little likelihood of GM's share price 
rising high enough during this year for Treasury to fully recoup its 
investment in GM. Treasury told us that it plans to develop a strategy 
for further divesting its equity stakes in both auto companies in the 
coming months. Because of these plans, we are not making a further 
recommendation in this area, but we believe that such a strategy, 
communicated to the public as transparently as possible, is important 
because the decisions that Treasury makes about further divestment 
will affect the extent to which the government is able to recoup its 
investments. 

While restructuring benefited GM and Chrysler, it created economic 
challenges for communities in which the companies closed a 
manufacturing plant or otherwise reduced employment. Our review of 
selected economic indicators for and site visits of these communities 
illustrates these challenges. While the Council and its staff within 
the Department of Labor's Auto Recovery Office have tried to help auto 
communities navigate these challenges by serving as a listening post 
and federal liaison, the results of their efforts are unclear. As 
officials from the communities we visited noted, the Council brought 
attention to the plight of auto communities, but it may have created 
unrealistic expectations of government assistance that led to 
disappointment, particularly when no funding was provided. 
Furthermore, because the Council and the Auto Recovery Office have not 
tracked their assistance to auto communities or measured or assessed 
the results of that assistance, it is difficult for communities, the 
public, or Congress to understand what the Council or the Auto 
Recovery Office have done or accomplished, as well as what value they 
might have in the future. By not systematically tracking their 
assistance and assessing and documenting the results, such as by 
keeping an inventory of the funding they have helped auto communities 
secure, analyzing the inventory for trends, and publishing the 
results, the Council and the Auto Recovery Office are also missing an 
opportunity to identify and share best practices, including the 
methods or types of assistance that are most effective in helping auto 
communities. This means that the assistance that auto communities have 
received and are currently receiving may not be as effective as it 
could be. Given the looming expiration date for the Council and the 
Administration's interest in continuing the Auto Recovery Office as 
noted by the 2012 budget request, the Department of Labor should 
evaluate what the office has achieved and, equally important, what can 
best be done to help auto communities. Such information is especially 
important if the Council--whose executive order outlines its 
functions, which are carried out by the Auto Recovery Office, and 
provides a framework for interagency collaboration to assist auto 
communities--is not extended. Absent this executive order, the 
office's purpose and functions are neither articulated nor documented. 
In addition, it is important that this information be promptly shared 
with Congress so that it can be used in making future funding 
decisions for the Auto Recovery Office and other federal programs that 
have been used by auto communities. 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

Given the absence of demonstrated results and the 2012 budget request 
for the Auto Recovery Office, the Secretary of Labor, as co-chair of 
the Council, should direct the Auto Recovery Office to (1) document 
the office's achievements to date, including its support to the 
Council and assistance provided to various auto communities; (2) 
identify its functions and strategy going forward; (3) establish a 
process for measuring the office's results; and (4) determine when and 
how the specialized assistance provided by the office can be 
transitioned to existing federal programs. This information should be 
communicated to Congress as soon as possible so that it can be 
considered in the fiscal year 2012 appropriations process. 

Matter for Congressional Consideration: 

Congress should consider not funding the Office of Recovery for Auto 
Communities and Workers, as requested for in the Department of Labor's 
fiscal year 2012 budget request, unless the Secretary of Labor 
provides Congress with information about the results of the federal 
government's assistance to auto communities to date and a plan for 
carrying out the federal government's efforts in the future. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Labor, 
Treasury, and Executive Office of the President for their review and 
comment. 

The Department of Labor provided written comments on the draft report, 
which are reprinted in appendix I. In its comments, the Department of 
Labor reiterated that the Council and the Auto Recovery Office have 
been able to marshal federal resources to support distressed auto 
communities by making over 60 visits to these communities, engaging 
congressional leaders, developing public-private partnerships between 
communities and philanthropic foundations, and coordinating federal 
agencies on their efforts to meet the needs expressed by these 
communities. The department notes that the best measure of success of 
the Council and Auto Recovery Office is evident in the numerous 
federal resources awarded by the federal agencies represented on the 
Council. As further evidence of the office's achievements, the 
department provided a list of the communities that they visited, which 
detailed the purpose of each trip and whether representatives from 
other federal agencies participated, and a table listing examples of 
federal resources that have been distributed to auto communities and 
workers by the federal agencies that comprise the Council. While the 
information on community visits provides additional detail of the 
office's activities, it does not articulate the office's achievements 
or results. Documenting the activities of the office is useful, but it 
does not address the intent of our recommendation--that is, the 
department should document, track, and assess the specific assistance 
being provided by the Auto Recovery Office to distressed auto 
communities, such as technical assistance, or the outcomes resulting 
from this assistance, such as whether auto communities received any 
additional resources as a result of the office's efforts. Similarly, 
the information on federal resources provided by the department shows 
the funding provided to auto communities by federal agencies--much 
like what is detailed in the Council's May 2010 report--but it does 
not show the extent to which the Council or the Auto Recovery Office 
influenced the distribution of these funds or helped the auto 
communities apply for and receive these funds. Therefore, we reiterate 
the need for the Auto Recovery Office to provide Congress with more 
specific information on how the office's efforts have addressed 
challenges facing auto communities and to better justify the continued 
investment in this targeted effort to auto communities, given the 
constrained federal budget environment. The Auto Recovery Office needs 
to provide Congress this information as well as it plans for the 
future as soon as possible given Congress' ongoing efforts to develop 
the fiscal year 2012 appropriations. 

In its letter, the Department of Labor also agreed that a process 
needs to be put in place to monitor the Council's and office's 
progress toward fulfilling its mission and notes the challenges in 
developing a set of metrics that measures activities such as 
facilitation and process and that the more traditional measures of 
performance-based results are being tracked by the agencies that are 
responsible for administering the actual delivery of services. While 
we appreciate the challenges in developing metrics for the type of 
work conducted by the Council and Auto Recovery Office, it is 
imperative such metrics be developed to help track and assess the 
Council's and office's results. By systematically measuring its 
results, the Council and office could assess their progress in meeting 
the functions outlined in the executive order, and such information on 
the Council's and office's results could help policymakers better 
target federal resources to address challenges facing these 
communities by identifying methods or types of assistance that are 
most effective in helping auto communities. 

Finally, the Department of Labor notes that there are currently senior-
level discussions within the Administration on the continued role of 
the Council and office in the Administration's effort to support auto 
communities and workers and anticipates that the Administration will 
identify the office's functions and strategy going forward in the next 
60 days. The letter further states that our report presupposes that 
the Council and office will be eliminated in the short term and argues 
that the services provided by the Auto Recovery Office can and should 
continue for the foreseeable future, even absent an extension of the 
executive order establishing the Council. While we do not assume that 
the Council or office will be eliminated, we do believe it is 
appropriate for the department to consider when and how the targeted 
assistance provided by the office can be transitioned to existing 
federal programs to minimize duplication of efforts between the office 
and the federal agencies providing the services. Furthermore, the 
potential absence of the Council makes it all the more important for 
the Auto Recovery Office to articulate its future plans, including how 
it will coordinate with other federal agencies to assist auto 
communities, given the executive order provides a framework to 
leverage interagency collaboration. The Department of Labor's written 
comments also included three technical comments, which we incorporated. 

Treasury generally agreed with the report's findings and provided 
written comments, which are reprinted in appendix II. Treasury also 
provided technical comments and clarification, which we incorporated 
as appropriate. The Executive Office of the President did not provide 
comments. 

We also provided relevant portions of a draft of this report to GM and 
Chrysler for their review and comment. GM and Chrysler provided 
technical comments and clarification that we incorporated as 
appropriate. We also provided representatives from the auto 
communities that we visited with statements from our interviews and 
made technical changes based on their comments, as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Department of Labor, 
Treasury, the Executive Office of the President, Special Inspector 
General for TARP, interested congressional committees and members, and 
others. The report also is available at no charge on the GAO Web site 
at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. If you or your staffs have any 
questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8678 or 
clowersa@gao.gov. 

Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who 
made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix III. 

Signed by: 

A. Nicole Clowers: 
Acting Director: 
Financial Markets and Community Investment Issues: 

List of Committees: 

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye:
Chairman:
The Honorable Thad Cochran:
Vice Chairman:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Tim Johnson:
Chairman:
The Honorable Richard C. Shelby:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Kent Conrad:
Chairman:
The Honorable Jeff Sessions:
Ranking Member:
Committee on the Budget:
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Max Baucus:
Chairman:
The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Finance:
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Hal Rogers:
Chairman:
The Honorable Norm Dicks:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Paul Ryan:
Chairman:
The Honorable Chris Van Hollen:
Ranking Member:
Committee on the Budget:
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Spencer Bachus:
Chairman:
The Honorable Barney Frank:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Financial Services:
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Dave Camp:
Chairman:
The Honorable Sander Levin:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Ways and Means:
House of Representatives: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Comments from the United States Department of Labor: 

U.S. Department of Labor:	
Office of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers: 
Washington, D.C. 20210: 

May 3, 2011: 

Ms. A. Nicole Clowers: 
Acting Director, Financial Markets, and Community Investment Issues: 
United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Glowers: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Government Accountability 
Office's (GAO) draft report entitled "Treasury's Exit from GM and 
Chrysler Highlights Competing Roles, and Results of Support to Auto 
Communities Are Unclear." In general, the draft report does a good job 
of understanding the role and activities of the White House Council on 
Automotive Communities and Workers (the Council) and the Office of 
Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers (the Office). However, there 
are a few factual clarifications we wish to make, as well as respond 
to the recommendations proposed by the GAO in the draft report. 

Page 35 of the draft report includes a bullet on National Emergency 
Grants, which are designed to respond to large, unexpected economic 
events. As written, the reference to "declines in the national 
economy" is too general. NEGs are not designed to subsidize Dislocated 
Worker Formula Allocation funds, rather NEGs are designed to respond 
to specific economic dislocation events. We request that the last line 
under "National Emergency Grants" be changed to read "that cause 
significant job losses, such as those experienced in the auto 
industry". 

Additionally, on page 38 of the draft report, reference is made to a 
budget justification. The 2012 Department of Labor budget 
justification does reference general activities which the Auto 
Recovery Office will undertake in 2012. Page DM-26 includes the 
following: "Office of Recovery Auto Communities and Workers: targets 
strategies and resources for revitalizing jobs for auto workers and 
the communities central to the industry." You can view this document 
at [hyperlink, 
http://www.dol.gov/dol/budget/2012/PDF/CBJ-2012-V3-02.pdf]. 

Lastly, on page 39, there is a reference made to a summit the Council 
co-sponsored with the Brookings Institution in May 2010. To clarify, 
this event, titled "Auto Communities and the Next Economy: 
Partnerships in Innovation", was co-sponsored by four entities:
the White House Council on Automotive Communities and Workers, the 
United States Department of Labor, the Funders Network for Smart 
Growth and Livable Communities, and the Brookings Institution 
Metropolitan Policy Program. 

Turning to the specific recommendations for executive action set forth 
in the draft report, we submit the following for your consideration. 

GAO recommendation: Auto Recovery Office should document the office's 
achievements to date, including its support to the Council and 
assistance provided to various auto communities. 

Even before the President signed the Executive Order creating the 
Council, the primary objective for the Office was to support workers 
and automotive communities as they dealt with the impact of the 
economic downturn in the auto industry. Staff from the
Office, including then-Executive Director Ed Montgomery, visited 
communities large and small, listening to the concerns of the 
communities and their leaders, and making sure these communities had a 
partner at each and every step of the way on their path towards 
recovery. The Council and the Office were charged with reaching out to 
the affected communities, bringing the communities and federal agency 
partners together, facilitating a dialogue that would identify the 
unique challenges each community faces, and act as an ombudsman for 
the communities and federal partners as they collaborated on solutions 
to the problems and barriers to recovery. The Office was not created 
to act as a new programmatic office with its own budget or authority 
to provide direct support to these communities. Rather than duplicate 
the programs and services already in place, the Office was established 
to provide communities with a direct link to the existing federal 
agencies and resources that could best help them through the recovery 
process. The intent was to highlight the needs of distressed auto 
communities and to help them navigate their way to the needed support 
government can provide. 

As we have learned, the journey towards a recovery is long and 
continues to this day, but the Council and the Office have been able 
to marshal federal resources to support those communities in greatest 
need of support. To that end, the Council and the Office made over 60 
visits to distressed auto communities across the country, engaged with 
congressional leaders, developed public-private partnerships between 
communities and philanthropic foundations, and coordinated with 
federal agencies on their efforts to meet the needs expressed by 
distressed auto communities. In the attached spreadsheet, we have 
compiled a list of the communities we visited and the purpose of the 
trips. 

The work of the Council and the Office was always designed to help 
lift up the concerns of the distressed auto communities and the GAO 
study confirms that they received reports from communities they 
visited that we were successful in bringing increased federal 
attention to the plight of auto communities. 

The best measure of the success of the Council and the Office is 
evident in the numerous federal resources awarded by the federal 
agencies that comprised the Council and were a result of both the 
communities' diligent efforts to apply for them, as well as the 
federal agencies commitment to consider the special needs of auto 
communities. Attached is a table which gives examples of federal 
resources that have gone out to Auto Communities and Workers. It is 
not an exhaustive list, but it illustrates the types of resources that 
have been provided. It is important that we stress that our office did 
not have funds at our disposal to directly respond to the communities, 
and that our primary role was make sure the communities were connected 
to the right agency and to facilitate the agency's response. 

GAO recommendation: Auto Recovery Office should identify its functions 
and strategy going forward. 

In light of the success the Administration has had in its efforts to 
help the auto industry turn around, it is appropriate to now review 
the continued role of the Council and the Office in efforts to support 
automotive communities and workers. There are currently senior level 
discussions within the Administration on exactly this issue. We 
anticipate that the Administration will provide an answer to this 
question in the next 60 days. 

GAO recommendation: Auto Recovery Office should establish a process 
for measuring the office's results. 

The Council and the Office were created as a demonstration of an 
administration-wide commitment to provide the support needed by auto 
communities and workers as they deal with the current crisis in the 
short-term and work towards recovery over the longterm. They have 
operated with that mission in mind since their inception. Since the
function of the Council and the Office has thus far been to act as an 
ombudsman for the communities and federal partners as they 
collaborated on solutions to the problems and barriers to recovery, it 
may be challenging to develop a set of metrics that measures 
facilitation and process. The more traditional measures of performance 
based on results are being tracked by the agencies that are 
responsible for administering the actual delivery of services. 
However, we agree with the GAO's recommendation that a process needs 
to be put in place to monitor the Council's and the Office's progress 
towards fulfilling its mission. We are committed to develop such a 
process. 

GAO recommendation: Auto Recovery Office should determine when and how 
the specialized assistance provided by the office can be transitioned 
to existing federal programs. 

While this recommendation by the GAO presupposes that the Council and 
the Office are eliminated in the short term, it is our position that 
the service provided by the Office to distressed auto communities can, 
and should, continue even absent an extension of the Executive Order. 
As evidenced by the GAO's recommendation, the Office provides
"specialized assistance" to these communities. The Council and the 
Office were created to provide auto communities with a central point 
of contact to help them navigate the various federal agencies that can 
provide assistance in their recovery efforts. Absent the creation of a 
specialized position in each of the key federal agencies, the Office 
exists as an established resource that can effectively coordinate the 
response of multiple federal agencies to multiple communities. 

We acknowledge that the Office will not exist in perpetuity; we 
believe that the situation facing distressed auto communities is still 
acute enough to be best addressed through the existence of a 
centralized, coordinated effort. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review the draft report. 
Should you or your staff have any questions concerning the statements 
or requests contained herein, please do not hesitate to contact us. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

James E. McMullen: 
Acting Director: 

Attachments: 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of the Treasury: 

Department Of The Treasury: 
Assistant Secretary: 
Washington, D.C. 20220: 	 

April 27, 2011:	 

Thomas J. McCool:	
Director, Center for Economics:	
Applied Research and Methods:	
U.S. Government Accountability Office:	
441 G Street, N.W.	
Washington, D.C. 20548:	 

Dear Mr. McCool:	 

The Department of the Treasury ("Treasury") appreciates the 
opportunity to review the GAO's latest draft report on the Troubled 
Asset Relief Program ("TARP"), titled "Treasury's Exit from	
GM and Chrysler Highlights Competing Roles, and Results of Support to 
Auto Communities Are Unclear". Treasury welcomes the GAO's 
acknowledgment that Treasury's assistance enabled General Motors and 
Chrysler to restructure and "tackle key challenges to achieving 
viability" and that without this assistance the companies may have had 
to liquidate. We also appreciate GAO's recognition that, in providing 
this assistance, Treasury took important steps to protect taxpayer 
interests and that Treasury has taken action consistent with many of 
GAO's earlier recommendations.	 

We also appreciate GAO's comments regarding the principles that guide 
our management of TARP investments. As we stated in our Agency 
Financial Report for the fiscal year 2010, we endeavor to "protect	
taxpayers and maximize overall investment returns within competing
constraints" and "dispose of investments as soon as practicable, in a 
timely and orderly manner that minimizes financial market and economic 
impact."
	
Treasury values the GAO's oversight of TARP and we look forward to 
continuing this constructive dialogue.	 

Sincerely,	 

Signed by: 

Timothy G. Massad:	
Acting Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability:	 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

A. Nicole Clowers (202) 512-8678 or clowersa@gao.gov Katherine A. 
Siggerud (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contacts named above, Raymond Sendejas (Assistant 
Director), Marcia Carlsen, Kieran Coe, Sharon Dyer, Elizabeth 
Eisenstadt, Sarah Farkas, Heather Krause, Terence Lam, Henry Malone, 
Matthew McDonald, Susan Michel-Smith, and SaraAnn Moessbauer made 
significant contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Prior to bankruptcy reorganization, the companies' legal names 
were Chrysler LLC and General Motors Corporation. Chrysler Group LLC 
and General Motors Company are new legal entities that were created 
through the bankruptcy process to purchase the operating assets of the 
pre-reorganization companies. 

[2] Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA), Pub. L. No. 
110-343, 122 Stat. 3765 (2008) (codified at 12 U.S.C. §§ 5201 et 
seq.). EESA originally authorized Treasury to purchase or guarantee up 
to $700 billion in troubled assets. The Helping Families Save Their 
Homes Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-22, Div. A, 123 Stat. 1632 (2009), 
amended EESA to reduce the maximum allowable amount of outstanding 
troubled assets under EESA by almost $1.3 billion, from $700 billion 
to $698.741 billion. While the Secretary of the Treasury extended the 
authority provided under EESA through October 3, 2010, the Dodd-Frank 
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), Pub. 
L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010), enacted on July 21, 2010, (1) 
reduced Treasury's authority to purchase or insure troubled assets to 
$475 billion and (2) prohibited Treasury from using its authority 
under EESA to incur any additional obligations for a program or 
initiative unless the program or initiative already had begun before 
June 25, 2010. 

[3] GAO, Troubled Asset Relief Program: Continued Stewardship Needed 
as Treasury Develops Strategies for Monitoring and Divesting Financial 
Interests in Chrysler and GM, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-151] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 2, 
2009). 

[4] EESA requires GAO to report at least every 60 days on findings 
resulting from, among other things, oversight of TARP's performance in 
meeting the purposes of the act, the financial condition and internal 
controls of TARP, the characteristics of both asset purchases and the 
disposition of assets acquired, TARP's efficiency in using the funds 
appropriated for the program's operation, and TARP's compliance with 
applicable laws and regulations. 

[5] For the purpose of this report, we consider Dayton and Moraine, 
Ohio, to be one auto community given Dayton's proximity to Moraine--
the location of GM's closed assembly plant--and Nashville and Spring 
Hill, Tennessee, to be one auto community given Nashville's proximity 
to Spring Hill--the location of GM's idled assembly plant. 

[6] The $12.5 billion committed to Chrysler includes $2.1 billion that 
had not been drawn as of April 1, 2011. AIFP also provided funding to 
support certain automotive finance companies, Chrysler Financial ($1.5 
billion) and GMAC, Inc. (now Ally Financial, Inc.) ($16.3 billion), 
which are not discussed in this report. Additionally, GM received a 
$884 million loan to participate in GMAC/Ally Financial's rights 
offering. Treasury exchanged this loan for a portion of GM's equity in 
GMAC/Ally Financial. As a result, Treasury initially received 35.4 
percent common equity interest in GMAC/Ally Financial. The GM loan was 
terminated, but GM paid $9 million in interest on the loan to 
participate in GMAC/Ally Financial's rights offering before the loan 
was terminated. In addition, under AIFP, Treasury established two 
programs--the Auto Supplier Support Program and the Warranty 
Commitment Program. The Auto Supplier Support Program was designed to 
ensure that automakers receive the parts and components they need to 
manufacture vehicles and that suppliers have access to liquidity on 
their receivables. Under this program, GM and Chrysler received loans, 
both of which have been repaid. The Warranty Commitment Program was 
designed to mitigate consumer uncertainty about purchasing vehicles 
from the restructuring automakers by providing funding to guarantee 
the warranties on new vehicles purchased from them. Funds were 
provided to GM and Chrysler under this program but have been repaid in 
full because both were able to continue to honor consumer warranties. 

[7] General Motors Company and Chrysler Group LLC are new legal 
entities that were created through the bankruptcy process to purchase 
substantially all of the operating assets of the pre-organization 
companies. Throughout this report, in cases where such a distinction 
is important, we refer to the pre-reorganization companies as "old GM" 
and "old Chrysler" and the post-reorganization companies as "GM" and 
"Chrysler." 

[8] The $11.8 billion in debt obligations includes $6.7 billion to GM, 
$0.5 billion assumed by new Chrysler for financing extended to old 
Chrysler, and $6.6 billion in loan obligations to new Chrysler, of 
which $2.1 billion has not been drawn. Treasury also provided funding 
that remained with the old companies--$986 million for GM and $5.4 
billion for Chrysler. Treasury received a $1.9 billion repayment on 
the original $4 billion loan extended to old Chrysler, wrote off $1.6 
billion of this loan, and as previously noted, $0.5 billion of this 
loan was assumed by new Chrysler. Treasury expects to receive limited 
recoveries related to the liquidation of collateral for its old 
Chrysler loan of $1.9 billion. Treasury's $986 million loan to old GM 
was converted to an administrative claim. As of April 20, 2011, 
Treasury received $95 million in proceeds on these loans. Treasury 
retains the right to recover additional proceeds from this loan, but 
any additional recovery is dependent on actual liquidation proceeds 
and pending litigation. 

[9] Ron Bloom, Senior Advisor, U. S. Department of the Treasury, 
written testimony before the Congressional Oversight Panel, Regarding 
Treasury's Automotive Industry Financing Program, July 27, 2009. These 
major corporate transactions include events such as mergers, sales of 
substantially all assets, and dissolutions; issuances of equity 
securities that entitle shareholders to vote; and amendments to the 
charter or bylaws. 

[10] GAO, Troubled Relief Asset Program: June 2009 Status of Efforts 
to Address Transparency and Accountability, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-658] (Washington, D.C.: June 17, 
2009). 

[11] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-151]. 

[12] Executive Order 13509, entitled "Establishing a White House 
Council on Automotive Communities and Workers." Exec. Order No. 13509, 
74 Fed. Reg. 30903 (June 23, 2009). 

[13] According to the order, the White House Council members are drawn 
from agencies and councils, including the Secretaries of Agriculture, 
Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, 
Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Labor, 
Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, as well as the 
Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency, General 
Services Administration, and Small Business Administration; the 
Directors of the Office of Management and Budget and the Domestic 
Policy Council; the Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers and 
Council on Environmental Quality; the Attorney General; and the United 
States Trade Representative. 

[14] In fiscal years 2009 and 2010, according to the budget for the 
Office of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers, it received about 
$277,000 and $130,000 of its funding from the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (2009). 

[15] The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 mandated a binding 
arbitration process that terminated General Motors and Chrysler 
dealers could follow if they were interested in having their franchise 
agreements reinstated. See Pub. L. No. 111-117, Division C, Title VII, 
§ 747, 123 Stat. 3034, 3219-3222 (2009). 

[16] Chrysler does not have a publicly available prebankruptcy break- 
even number for comparison. 

[17] This estimate assumes that GM will have an 18 to 19 percent share 
of the total market. 

[18] Operating income describes a company's profit or loss from core 
operations. Net income includes gains and losses from nonoperating 
sources, such as interest income/loss, investment income, taxes, and 
noncash, accounting charges. As noted in table 3, Chrysler uses 
modified operating income (loss), a measure that generally accepted 
accounting principles do not provide for to monitor operating results. 
Chrysler notes that this financial measure may not be comparable to 
other similarly titled measures of other companies, such as GM. 

[19] Minimum funding requirements are set forth in the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Pub. L. No. 93 - 406, 
88 Stat. 829 (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461). For more 
information, see GAO, Troubled Asset Relief Program: Automaker Pension 
Funding and Multiple Federal Roles Pose Challenges for the Future, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-492] (Washington, D.C.: 
Apr. 6, 2010). 

[20] This program was established to provide loans for retooling U.S. 
factories to make vehicles and components that improve fuel economy. 
Pub. L. No. 110-140, Title I, Subtitle B, § 136, 121 Stat. 1492, 1514- 
1516 (2007). 

[21] As part of Chrysler's bankruptcy sale transaction, Daimler agreed 
to fund $600 million in three equal installments to Chrysler's U.S. 
pension plans. Consistent with this agreement, Chrysler received 
payments of $200 million in June 2009 and June 2010, which it 
contributed to its U.S. pension plans, and is scheduled to receive the 
remaining $200 million in June 2011. 

[22] Of Treasury's $7.1 billion commitment to Chrysler, $2.1 billion 
remains available for Chrysler to draw down. As previously noted, as 
part of a settlement agreement on the $4 billion in loans that 
Treasury extended to finance old Chrysler, Treasury received a $1.9 
billion loan repayment and wrote off $1.6 billion of the loan and new 
Chrysler assumed $0.5 billion. 

[23] The amended UAW contract includes a "no strike" provision, 
requiring the parties to submit to binding arbitration if no agreement 
can be reached. 

[24] Historically, the companies offered consumers incentives and 
discounts because of these perceptions, but incentives and discounts 
can also contribute to an erosion of the vehicles' value and have a 
negative impact on margins realized on vehicle sales. 

[25] GM's fleet sales are for the first 9 months of 2010. 

[26] The recent earthquake in Japan could have an effect on all 
automakers' vehicle production. On April 20, 2011, GM announced that 
the company was increasingly confident that the situation in Japan 
would not have a material impact on the company's full-year results. 

[27] To aid in restructuring its European operations, GM entered into 
negotiations with a consortium including Magna International, a 
Canadian auto supplier, to sell a majority stake of its Germany-based 
Opel brand. GM's Board of Directors decided not to pursue the deal and 
to maintain full ownership of Opel. 

[28] Treasury's equity has since been diluted to 32.04 percent because 
of the shares contributed to GM's hourly and salaried pension plans in 
January 2011. 

[29] As previously noted, Treasury also wrote off $1.6 billion of the 
loan extended to finance old Chrysler. According to Treasury, this 
repayment, while less than face value, was significantly more than it 
had previously estimated to recover following Chrysler's bankruptcy 
and greater than the estimated valuation prepared by Keefe, Bruyette 
and Woods, Treasury's adviser for this transaction. 

[30] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-151]. 

[31] As previously noted, on March 29, 2011, the bankruptcy judge 
signed an order approving old GM's amended bankruptcy plan. This plan 
created four trusts, including a trust responsible for, among other 
things, distributing the GM common stock and warrants owned by old GM 
to those unsecured creditors whose claims are allowed. Old GM 
announced that on or about April 21, 2011, it expected to begin 
distributing shares of common stock and warrants to its unsecured 
creditors. 

[32] Initially, GM's IPO share price was expected to be between $26 
and $29, but strong investor interest during the company's road show 
presentations resulted in the offering being oversubscribed. According 
to Treasury, Lazard and the underwriters assessed the extent to which 
the IPO could support an increase in the share price without eroding 
the demand. The underwriters advised that $33 was possible, and the 
price was subsequently increased. 

[33] Lazard had access to the underwriters' changing tally of 
expressed demand from market participants, which identified the 
specific investors interested in the IPO and the share price that they 
were willing to pay. Treasury and Lazard officials noted that Treasury 
did not have access to investor-specific information, but instead, 
Treasury relied on Lazard to provide analysis on the distribution of 
investors. Lazard's comparative analysis drew on previous large IPOs, 
including Visa's and the Agricultural Bank of China's. 

[34] The list of original investors in GM's IPO is not publicly 
available. 

[35] As we previously reported, Treasury received preferred stock in 
Citigroup, which Treasury exchanged for common stock and trust 
preferred securities. Treasury began selling its common stock in April 
2010. See GAO, Financial Audit: Office of Financial Stability 
(Troubled Asset Relief Program) Fiscal Years 2010 and 2009 Financial 
Statements, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-174] 
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2010). 

[36] To calculate the share price needed for Treasury to recoup its 
investment, we divided Treasury's outstanding balance for GM by the 
number of Treasury's shares in GM. In both the pre-IPO and post-IPO 
share price calculations, the outstanding balance reflects the total 
amount disbursed to GM ($49.5 billion) less GM's $2.1 billion payment 
for Treasury's preferred shares and $6.8 billion in loan repayments. 
In calculating the post-IPO share price, we also subtracted the $13.5 
billion in IPO proceeds from the outstanding balance and divided it by 
the number of Treasury's remaining shares in GM after the IPO. 

[37] As of April 2011, the ownership interests of Chrysler are the UAW 
VEBA trust (59.2 percent), Fiat (30 percent), Treasury (8.6 percent), 
and the Canadian government (2.2 percent). 

[38] Our analysis includes all funds Treasury has provided to Chrysler 
that will be repaid through a combination of debt and equity, but 
excludes the $2.1 billion that has not been drawn. We include the $1.9 
billion repayment from the old Chrysler settlement and assume that new 
Chrysler will repay its $5 billion in debt. Additionally, the $1.6 
billion write-off is included in the amount that is needed to fully 
recoup Treasury's investment in Chrysler. We also based our 
calculation on Treasury's current equity stake of 8.6 percent. As a 
result, Treasury's equity will have to be worth its total investments 
minus projected repayments of principal. This analysis does not take 
into account the cost or opportunity cost to Treasury of lending, any 
interest Treasury should or could charge to the company on the portion 
of its investment that has been converted into equity, the present 
value of the investment, or the value of any social costs or benefits 
resulting from the investment. If Fiat achieves its one remaining 
performance-related target and earns an additional 5 percent equity 
along with exercising its option to acquire an additional 16 percent 
equity, Treasury's equity stake will be diluted to 6 percent, meaning 
that Chrysler's total equity value would need to reach $58 billion for 
Treasury to recoup its investment. 

[39] In commenting on a draft of this report, Treasury officials noted 
that Chrysler's past equity values are not comparable to today's 
equity values because Chrysler has substantially restructured its 
balance sheet through bankruptcy. Although we recognize the changes 
Chrysler has experienced in recent years, we believe this information 
provides a sense of the magnitude of growth that will be required of 
Chrysler. 

[40] Congressional Oversight Panel, January Oversight Report, "An 
Update on TARP Support for the Domestic Automotive Industry" (Jan. 13, 
2011). 

[41] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-151]. 

[42] As previously noted, for the purpose of this report, we consider 
Dayton and Moraine, Ohio, to be one auto community. Moraine is 
proximal to Dayton and is the community in which GM closed an assembly 
plant in 2008 as part of restructuring. 

[43] The housing price index data have limitations, in that they track 
only the average housing prices at the metropolitan area and may not 
reflect the housing prices at the smaller constituent counties, such 
as auto communities, within the metropolitan areas. The housing prices 
are generally determined by the supply of and demand for housing 
units. To the extent that the plant closures' effect on the stock of 
housing units and population varied among counties or small 
communities, the housing prices would also behave differently. As a 
result, averaging housing prices across the counties within a 
metropolitan area could obscure the varying movement of housing prices. 

[44] In 2004, GAO reported that an estimated 450,000 to 1 million 
brownfield sites are abandoned or underused across the country. 

[45] GAO, Brownfield Redevelopment: Stakeholders Cite Additional 
Measures That Could Complement EPA's Efforts to Clean Up and Redevelop 
Properties, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-450T] 
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 5, 2005). 

[46] Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (2009). 

[47] Of the $772 million set aside in the Motors Liquidation 
Corporation ("Old GM") bankruptcy plan, $536 million was provided for 
remediation with the remaining amount for administrative costs. 

[48] The Council held listening sessions in Fremont, California; 
Flint, Detroit, Grand Rapids, and Warren, Michigan; St. Louis, 
Missouri; Dayton, Twinsburg, and Toledo, Ohio; and Janesville and 
Kenosha, Wisconsin. 

[49] White House, Annual Report of the White House Council on 
Automotive Communities and Workers (Washington, D.C: May 2010). The 
Council has not established a timeline for issuing an annual report in 
2011. 

[50] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance 
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 
2005). 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: