Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
General Motors discussions
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Yes there have been two reported fires. Perhaps there is really something wrong or perhaps not. We will see. Good for GM that recalls really dropped in '07 and GM had fewer recalls than any other mainstream OEM's including Toyota even though they have more than twice as many cars on the road as any other manufacturer (guestimate only).
Far as earnings there really was a huge increase in profit last year on the automotive side. The financial meltdown in this country drove huge losses at GMAC. The large number they posted was due to the huge tax write off which was just a paper exercise.
GM today announced an adjusted net loss – excluding special items — of $23 million in 2007. This compares to an adjusted net income of $2.2 billion in 2006, as significantly improved automotive performance was offset by large losses at GMAC.
Including special items, the company reported a loss of $38.7 billion, compared to a reported loss of $2 billion in 2006. The 2007 loss is almost entirely attributed to the non-cash $38.3 billion special charge in the third quarter related to the valuation allowance against deferred tax assets.
General Motors Corp. today announced a record $39 billion net loss for the third quarter of 2007, its bottom line marred by a colossal tax accounting charge against its earnings.
Hours before today's earnings release, the automaker surprised Wall Street in announcing a $38.6 billion charge to third-quarter results related to future tax benefits. GM said the charge is an accounting adjustment and doesn't affect the automaker's cash flow or long-term prospects for profitability.
But investment analysts were reading GM's explanation as gloomy indication that GM's outlook is worse that initially believed.
Because the numbers you are referring to are for last year and guess what!! they announced they were taking the tax write off a few months ago!!! Same tax wriet off.
And you are right a loss is a loss and but a tax write off is mumbo jumbo rithmetic due to US tax laws. As I said they showed a huge turnaround in the auto sector.
how many tax write off can you have in 4 months? we are talking a 77+ billion dollor loss,er tax write off You can have as many as the law allows. But in this case they only took one. See my first sentence above. I would also say it is almost impossible for a company, no matter how big it is, to have a 33 billion true loss. Lets get real here.
...how about the buyout to every single american worker
Yea, they are offering buyouts to the guys making well over $50/hour (including beni's, I do come from a GM union family) so they can close unneeded plants and hire new workers at similar wages to those working in the competitors plants right here in the US down south. GM used to have 50% of the market, now they have 25% and needed to close plants but union rules would not allow closing of plants because GM had to keep all the workers on the payroll. To buy them out is the only way to close those plants.
Anyway this forum thread was made for those of us who wanted to be in support of GM and discuss the issues that are helping them to succeed. Not have to defend GM against those who want to see it go down and use incorrect facts to make ther points.
Right on, man! We need to support our corporations, no matter what they do!
See, GM lost $39 billion last year. Actually, the $39 billion wasn't a "loss," it was just a tax write-off. But it's still bad. Well, not really. It's actually good, because it shows that the company is growing. Well, not growing here in the U.S., but growing in foreign countries. But that's good for the U.S. because ..... well, just because.
See, it's complicated. And you guys are too dumb to understand. So you need to shut up and go to another thread.
.
Ummm. Toyo fanboy how about reading your post again. They reported it for the THIRD QUARTER ONLY!!!!! Now, when reporting YEAR END RESULTS, the THIRD QUARTER WRITE OFF is included in the YEAR END RESULTS.
They actually lost less that $1 billion, (about $100 million on North American ops), but MOST of the ACTUAL LOSS was attributed to GMAC because of the housing crunch.
problems can read all about the latest developments under
the topic: "Saturn Aura New Owner Reports" ,
Rocky, Steelerman, 62vette please take note.
Wait! It wasn't a tax write-off, it was a tax credit. If you don't know that, you're stupid!
Wait! The tax credit wasn't for the whole year, just for the third quarter. If you don't know that, you're stupid!
Wait! The tax credit wasn't GM's fault, it was GMAC's fault. If you don't know that, you're stupid!
Wait! It wasn't GMAC's fault, it was the "housing crunch." If you don't know that, you're stupid!
In summary, GM's problems are OUR fault because we're not buying enough houses.
If you don't know that ......
.
for those who can't read it:
Special items included a net non-cash charge of $38.6 billion due to a valuation allowance against deferred tax assets related to operations in the U.S., Canada and Germany as required under SFAS No. 109, Accounting for Income...
the nearly 39 billion was tax assets (not real money) which could have been used if GM had profits to pay income taxes on. As you all know GM has not had any profits to pay income taxes on for the last few years, so the tax assets are worthless.
Anyone who doesn't know that must be stupid!
Anyway, since the "39 billion was tax assets," and "the tax assets are worthless," GM didn't really lose money. They simply committed $39 billion worth of tax fraud.
Thanks for clearing that up.
.
However, consider the housewife with a $100 worth of coupons that expire today. Does she really lose a $100? Can she actually buy $100 of stuff with the coupons and no other source of money?
If you can set aside the $39 billion of tax assets, then GM is more or less breaking even. This is not good, but is not as bad as they have been doing.
Maybe all of us should revise our taxes back to 2002, just like GM. After all, none of us won the lottery, so we can all claim $10 million dollar "special item" losses, and get back all the money we paid to the IRS.
I guess the old saying is true -- what's good for GM is good for America!
.
man-will-never-fly wrong.
I was 26.3-miles-per-gallon-in-three-ton-SUV wrong; and that's way
wrong.
GM has redefined what's possible for hybrid drivetrains, and the
evidence is on sale in the form of the 2008 Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC
Yukon, with plenty more models to come.
Nobody but GM makes a hybrid full-size SUV, so the Tahoe has no direct
competitors. The only question is how well the unique system works.
Based on my test, the only answer is: brilliantly.
GM calls the system a two-mode hybrid because it improves fuel economy
both in city and highway driving. Other hybrid systems reduce fuel
consumption in city driving, but have no effect at highway speeds.
Incidentally, the 344 gallons of gasoline saved by driving a Tahoe
hybrid rather than an Expedition or Armada is greater than the reduction
in fuel use the EPA predicts by switching from a midsize gasoline-only
Chevrolet Malibu to a compact Toyota Prius hybrid. If drivers got the fuel economy I experienced, their fuel costs would
fall another $400 a year, according to the EPA calculator.
After experiencing how well the system operates in a big, blocky
full-size SUV, I can't wait to see the fuel economy it provides in
smaller and lighter vehicles.
When they arrive, my expectations will be sky-high. I've seen the
future. I believe man can fly and GM can build a great hybrid. Now I
want to see how far they can go.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080221/COL14/802210312/1015/BU- SINESS02
Thanks
Zack
of expectations in January, Toyota is not worried about meeting its
annual objective.
Last year, the Tundra's better sales months were in the 18,000 to 22,000
range. But January's mark of 12,073 was well below that. On an
annualized basis, that came to a 185,000-unit clip. That's well below
the 200,000-plus mark Toyota has set for 2008.
GMC was about even over last year with 13,200 sales and Chevy was down 6% with 36,000 sales.
Year-to-Date (YTD) Jan 2008
Ford F-Series
41,125 -8.4% YTD
Jan 2008: 41,125
Jan 2007: 44,919
Chevrolet Silverado
36,122 -5.9% YTD
Jan 2008: 36,122
Jan 2007: 38,393
Dodge Ram
19,902 -18.0% YTD
Jan 2008: 19,902
Jan 2007: 24,379
GMC Sierra
13,200 +0.4% YTD
Jan 2008: 13,200
Jan 2007: 13,147
Toyota Tundra
12,073 +90.9% YTD
Jan 2008: 12,073
Jan 2007: 6,321
Toyota Tacoma
11,064 -15.3% YTD
Jan 2008: 11,064
Jan 2007: 13,063
Chevrolet Colorado
5,797 +11.4% YTD
Jan 2008: 5,797
Jan 2007: 5,204
Ford Ranger
5,546 +19.2% YTD
Jan 2008: 5,546
Jan 2007: 4,652
Nissan Frontier
4,064 -15.7% YTD
Jan 2008: 4,064
Jan 2007: 4,820
Nissan Titan
3,692 -29.4% YTD
Jan 2008: 3,692
Jan 2007: 5,226
Toyota introduced the vehicle a little over a year ago and it was ramping up production and volume. While the Jan '08 sales are well above the constrained ramp up volumes they are well below the average rate last year. If they were to keep on trend they would have sold about 15,000 vehicles in Jnauary.
Of course one month does not make a trend. Even though GM was up last month and most others down most likely that will not be repeated this month.
MODERATOR
Need help getting around? claires@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Tell everyone about your buying experience: Write a Dealer Review
Thanks for pointing that out. I never had read message one, but did now look at it and it states in part: "Whether you agree or disagree with the company's business plan, this discussion will be focused on how the company can improve, not on how much you may hate it and want it to fail."
Seems like message one intent did not get translated into board title. Better board title might be: "How can GM improve - its products, desirability, reliability, profitability, etc.?"
The present board title is misleading.
I think if GM can get the Volt concept car functional, this would go a long way toward building the cars needed for the future.
The automaker has urged a similar combination of Buick, Pontiac and GMC dealerships in recent years.
"We want to run a little hard on our luxury side and see if we can't be a little more proactive, particularly in certain markets, trying to help dealer profitability by getting better alignment with Saab, Hummer and Cadillac," CEO Rick Wagoner said here this month at the National Automobile Dealers Association convention.
The luxury channeling effort lags behind the Buick-Pontiac-GMC consolidation. GM has pared the Buick, Pontiac and GMC product lineups to the point that some single-brand stores would be difficult to operate. Buick's lineup, for example, consists of two cars and one crossover.
GM officials say Cadillac, Hummer and Saab have broad enough lineups that high-volume, stand-alone stores would continue to do well in some locations. Those areas include northern Virginia, Washington and New York, Wagoner said.
"But where we've got a lot of stand-alone Hummer and Saab stores, in a lot of cases we think it might make sense to move alignment," he said. "We are sensitive to the fact that the cost of doing business continues to escalate, and so it does suggest higher throughput is going to help them."
The world has changed and IF the democrat wins the presidency look for even more onerous MPG rules. Both have already said they want to up the requirements.
Yet every article I read says the CTS is overweight compared to the same priced competition, ie the 3 series. And it is! It is bigger and heavier. So Caddy is in a no mans land of larger and heavier than its competitors. Maybe that is a good place to be? Maybe in the US. However every where else it is a large vehicle (maybe not Austrailia) and Caddy needs a smaller vehicle to compete. The FWD BLS is NOT a good competitor in Europe for the 3 series. It just is not.
So the question I have will the Alpha caddy be 3 series size or smaller? Hopefully it will be the same size and have all the attributes to compete right onto the 3 in Europe with a decent price point. If it does the C class will also be within striking distance.
GM is making the Cadillac a Global brand. It has to have the vehicles everywhere to compete with BMW and MB. I heard someone say make Saab the cheaper model to compete with BMW and MB. Not gonna happen. Am I incorrect or is Saab considered a premium marquee like MB in Europe? I do not think so.
GM will have only two true global brands:Chevrolet at the bottom and Caddy at the top. Buick is basically NA and China, and the only reason it is in China is because of the history there. Buick will not become a true Global brand. It will be around a long time because of China. Pontiac is a NA brand only and it is the one that could be in trouble and dropped. Saab is NA and Europe and even there it is a low volume vehicle. Again Saab could be seen as disposable. Saturn is NA only and as we have seen it is basically pairing up with Opel. So GM has found a way to keep Saturn going at low investment. How about Opel? I have no idea but I doubt that GM would pull the plug on such a well known brand.
As long as GM has about 25% of the US market and continues to expand globally as they have we will not see any killing of brands here in the US. It is just too darn expensive and with global engineering/parts sharing more efficiencies will be put in place.
Just FYI - the CTS is 191 inches long, the 3 series is 178 inches long, the C-class is 182.....there is room under the CTS for a "BTS" that would be the same size as a 3 series or C class - especially in any "world" market outside the USA.....or even here when gas hits $4 or $5 a gallon... it's a new paradigm.
I thought the Lucerne was a premium or mid luxury car that's smaller than a CTS.
The BLS is a premium car smaller than the CTS, and they don't sell any.
The BLS is a premium car smaller than the CTS, and they don't sell any.
Lucerne is a foot longer FWD car that starts at $27K. The CTS is a smaller car that sells for $34k. Completely different segments. Its like comparing an Avalon to a 3 series. Well kinda
And yes they do not sell any BLS's here, and in Europe it has not sold well for a number of reasons and one is that it is just not competitive over there. FWD and not a real Cadillac.
I agree completely. You can see how interest/"hype" in a car falls off shortly after the introduction when there is no money to promote it. With the Aura, I saw reletively little about the G6 anymore. With the Malibu, I see very little about the Aura or even Impala anymore. All the models need some attention all of the all of the time and not the current on or off spigot.
The CTS proves that Cadillac can lose it's luxo barge stigma if it wants to. It is your almost quintesential large(r) RWD, powerful, in your face American car for a 3 series and C class price.