<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Some Questions about GMAC</title>
	<atom:link href="http://baselinescenario.com/2008/12/31/gmac-bailout/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://baselinescenario.com/2008/12/31/gmac-bailout/</link>
	<description>What happened to the global economy and what we can do about it</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 23:20:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott E. Pace MD</title>
		<link>http://baselinescenario.com/2008/12/31/gmac-bailout/#comment-2513</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott E. Pace MD]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 04:04:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://baselinescenario.com/?p=1803#comment-2513</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to the Boston Globe:

&quot;The US Treasury said it will purchase a $5 billion stake in GMAC LLC, the financing arm of General Motors Corp.&quot;

&quot;The Fed order says GM will reduce its stake to less than 10 percent of the voting and total equity interest of GMAC. GM&#039;s remaining equity interest in GMAC will be transferred to an independent government-accepted trustee who must dispose of the equity held in the trust within three years of the trust&#039;s creation. Cerberus, which led an investment group that bought a 51-percent stake in GMAC from the automaker for $14 billion in 2006, will reduce its stake in GMAC to no more than 33 percent of the lender&#039;s total equity.&quot;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>According to the Boston Globe:</p>
<p>&#8220;The US Treasury said it will purchase a $5 billion stake in GMAC LLC, the financing arm of General Motors Corp.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;The Fed order says GM will reduce its stake to less than 10 percent of the voting and total equity interest of GMAC. GM&#8217;s remaining equity interest in GMAC will be transferred to an independent government-accepted trustee who must dispose of the equity held in the trust within three years of the trust&#8217;s creation. Cerberus, which led an investment group that bought a 51-percent stake in GMAC from the automaker for $14 billion in 2006, will reduce its stake in GMAC to no more than 33 percent of the lender&#8217;s total equity.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim</title>
		<link>http://baselinescenario.com/2008/12/31/gmac-bailout/#comment-2373</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jim]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:44:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://baselinescenario.com/?p=1803#comment-2373</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Perhaps someone can explain how this fits into another GMAC news item, reported on WSJ.com this morning: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123089885294248867.html

GMAC and GM have announced a change in an exclusivity agreement between them. The change is described as

&quot;. . . allowing GM the option to offer auto financing incentives through a third-party financing source for two years under some circumstances.

&quot;Under the original 2006 agreement, whenever GM offers financing incentives such as lower interest rates than market rates, it was obliged to do so through GMAC. GM received an annual fee from GMAC for granting the exclusive right . . .&quot;

Do I understand correctly that GMAC was willing to pay for the privilege of making below market loans? I would have thought that the subsidy would have run the other way, i.e., GM would pay GMAC a buy-down fee to subsidize customers and move product.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Perhaps someone can explain how this fits into another GMAC news item, reported on WSJ.com this morning: <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123089885294248867.html" rel="nofollow">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123089885294248867.html</a></p>
<p>GMAC and GM have announced a change in an exclusivity agreement between them. The change is described as</p>
<p>&#8220;. . . allowing GM the option to offer auto financing incentives through a third-party financing source for two years under some circumstances.</p>
<p>&#8220;Under the original 2006 agreement, whenever GM offers financing incentives such as lower interest rates than market rates, it was obliged to do so through GMAC. GM received an annual fee from GMAC for granting the exclusive right . . .&#8221;</p>
<p>Do I understand correctly that GMAC was willing to pay for the privilege of making below market loans? I would have thought that the subsidy would have run the other way, i.e., GM would pay GMAC a buy-down fee to subsidize customers and move product.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amit Agarwal</title>
		<link>http://baselinescenario.com/2008/12/31/gmac-bailout/#comment-2367</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Amit Agarwal]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2009 03:20:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://baselinescenario.com/?p=1803#comment-2367</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A friend tells me that a person with a credit score of 660 or below is considered a subprime borrower. Is this correct? If so, how is this a sound policy move?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A friend tells me that a person with a credit score of 660 or below is considered a subprime borrower. Is this correct? If so, how is this a sound policy move?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: brian</title>
		<link>http://baselinescenario.com/2008/12/31/gmac-bailout/#comment-2356</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[brian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:05:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://baselinescenario.com/?p=1803#comment-2356</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Obviously, the government dictated the reduction in FICO standards as a quid pro quo for the FED&#039;s approval of GMAC&#039;s application for a banking license despite the failure of their recap plan.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Obviously, the government dictated the reduction in FICO standards as a quid pro quo for the FED&#8217;s approval of GMAC&#8217;s application for a banking license despite the failure of their recap plan.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

