Of course this means that when you let up on the pedal as you crest a hill, the gas engine begins charging the battery and it would be running at near maximum power output since the battery is very low. So you would be hearing the gas engine revving at max power even though you are coasting down hill. So while in that situation you may have adequate power, I'd suspect that you are going to have a high revving noisy engine at odd times, since the engine may be working to charge the battery at times you are not actually pressing the gas pedal down much, or at all. Not necessarily bad, but unusual relative to typical gas powered car.
Except for one thing. Supposedly the gas engine never charges the battery.
".....Except for one thing. Supposedly the gas engine never charges the battery."
This should explain it (from the Q&A section):
Q: When the battery is depleted down to 30% SOC (state of charge)after 40 miles, why is it maintained there instead of the generator recharging it?
A: Powering the electric motor directly from the generator is more efficient than repeatedly charging and discharging the battery.
All batteries have some internal electrical resistance. Whenever the battery is charged or discharged, some energy is lost in the form of heat due to this resistance. By powering the motor directly from the generator, this resistance is bypassed. Energy is lost in this manner when charging the battery and when utilizing the electric range, but this is unavoidable and the energy loss is small compared to the energy wasted by an internal combustion engine.
A: If the generator recharged the battery, this would prevent taking advantage of the main feature of the Volt, which is to recharge it with grid electricity.
A: Cycling the battery more often would reduce its lifetime.
I think Chevy is still up in the air about this battery charging thing using the gasoline engine/generator. It makes sense that a gas engine/generator set could easily charge a battery. But with their "Range Extender" concept and a 6 gallon gas tank, they seem to be trying to move the customer's thoughts away from gasoline powered recharging to plug-in-at-night recharging.
Plug-in EV should not use any gasoline at all, in their purest form. The Volt may wind up being "Just Almost Good Enough" at best.
What that boils down to is no, the ICE never charges the battery. It's a 40 mile EV with a backup generator. Which means realistically, you can't go more than 20 miles (need to get back, after all).
Except for one thing. Supposedly the gas engine never charges the battery.
That appears to be incorrect. Is the GM-Volt site an official GM site or independently run? From the GM-Volt FAQ:
"Those who follow this site closely should have a good understanding of the relationship between the generator and the battery in the Chevy Volt. Unfortunately Edmunds did not, stating that the engine does not recharge the battery, and created a bit of an Internet frenzy over, well, nothing, they were just wrong.
The battery is recharged by the engine, but only as little as possible. The point is to avoid petroleum use."
While this may be true, we're here to discuss things, not mock one another. I'd call you an A$$Hle, but it would cause my post to get bumped off prior to you reading it, so arrogant will do.
Probably the truest statement made during this entire discussion on the Volt.
This is a nice debate but to be honest, the Volt will likely not be produced by GM. Also, there are probably 2-3 other manufacturers that will beat GM to the market with more practical plug-ins. As someone else mentioned, we should be on the 2nd or 3rd generation Volt.
But, isn't the major cost the battery? The Original Prius went on sale for a base price of $19,995 in 2000, with a battery pack that retailed for $5-6000. Today, the battery pack retails for $2-2500, but the base price for a 2009 is around $22,500. That doesn't make sense.
The Volt may now be targeted at $40K, and (HOPEFULLY) they can get that down some in 18 months via the battery pack. But at some point, the battery tech. WILL bring the price down.
BTW, I didn't realize this, but the Volt is slated to be built on the same assembly line as the Cruze, so this should help cut assembly costs, as it doen't need it's own plant.
Then again, a real EV would have 2.5 times the round-trip electrical range (and 5 times the max range) of the GM MilliVolt. Unless the gas engine does better than that, they're in trouble.
".....Then again, a real EV would have 2.5 times the round-trip electrical range (and 5 times the max range) of the GM MilliVolt. Unless the gas engine does better than that, they're in trouble. "
2.5 times the rt electrical range would be 100 miles. 5 times the max range would be 1750 miles (350 total miles including using the gas). What EV does this???
this wasn't a forum solely for the purpose of technical engineering discussions among people "qualified" to discuss such matters. Did I miss a sea change here at Edmunds?
The Volt perfectly typifies, IMO, everything wrong with GM in the last 30 years. They were behind the competition, in this case the competition was hybrids from the Japanese companies, and instead of putting a workable hybrid on the street to give themselves a 35 mpg family sedan, they chose to shoot for being the grandaddy of an entirely new field of alternative propulsion. By trying to be the big shots, they missed the fact that the corporation was bankrupt under their feet, and that they had no product to offer a $4 gasoline world.
If there is anything left to the American business ethic of rewarding the successes and penalizing the failures, this company must declare bankruptcy this weekend. Maybe in some fire sale of GM assets a company with a closer eye on reality will pick up the Volt research and development where GM left off, and turn it into something real.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I totally agree. GM is in no condition to offer a new concept as a loss leader to generate enthusiasm. If they had deep pockets as at one time in the past they could afford to lose a few billion. Now they owe everybody money including you and me. I say liquidate and give the viable auto makers a chance to deliver the next generation of automotive excellence.
The Original Prius went on sale for a base price of $19,995 in 2000, with a battery pack that retailed for $5-6000. Today, the battery pack retails for $2-2500, but the base price for a 2009 is around $22,500. That doesn't make sense.
The original Prius was sold for a loss. It was sold to the public simply for 3 purposes: 1. To pass the federal requirements and California's on emmisions laws 2. To recoup some of the losses from the massive R&D bill. 3. To test the market reactions towards hybrids and to build their hybrids' reputation.
Being (at that time) the most profitable car manufacturer in the world enabled Toyota to do so. They did the same thing with Rav-EV, and dropped the project since it received cold reaction from the market.
Now Prius is sold for more and more, perhaps still making measly profit at best, but the arrival of Lexus HS will certainly be aimed at real profits.
The Volt may now be targeted at $40K, and (HOPEFULLY) they can get that down some in 18 months via the battery pack. But at some point, the battery tech. WILL bring the price down.
Yes, one day it will. However they can't expect an early model to sell well at such lofty price, and they can't use the same strategy Prius used because they can't afford more losses. They're simply stuck depending on luck alone.
But, isn't the major cost the battery? The Original Prius went on sale for a base price of $19,995 in 2000, with a battery pack that retailed for $5-6000. Today, the battery pack retails for $2-2500, but the base price for a 2009 is around $22,500. That doesn't make sense.
Because Honda priced the Insight low which forces Toyota to meet that price. The Volt should have been a Caddy to justify it's price point and then the tech could filter down to Chevy. Now, a Chevy costing more than the competition which have added loads of luxo feature to their hybrids are pushing the bar lower...Chevy will not be able to compete mass market with a costly PEHV.
Maybe in some fire sale of GM assets a company with a closer eye on reality will pick up the Volt research and development where GM left off, and turn it into something real.
As of now, the owners R' US...alone with a failed gargantuan skeleton that was once GM with 50% market share....it was theirs to loose and by Golly, they sure did a great job!!
Nice work...now we'll really see a foreign influx of capital and technology that should have been going the other way...remember those days? :sick:
Oh, BTW give Mr. Anwl my message...be careful Edmund's doesn't wind up like GM. Making stupid statements is just the beginning.
C&D just trashed the HS250...they'd rather go with the Prius...just goes to show what development will achieve.
I have no doubt the Roger Penske, Toyota, Honda or whoever will wind up with the rights to the Volt will succeed after a time.
The point again would have been the target price of the Volt set to meet the competition around $25K or upscale it to meet the price. It was never going to be mass market out of the barn. A typical GM decision I will not miss.
'Bye 'Bye, Miss American Pie, drove my Chevy to the Levy BUT THE LEVY RAN DRY!
"About the only question regarding a General Motors Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing that remains is what day it'll be filed.
GM announced Wednesday morning that bondholders, who had until midnight, to trade $27.2 billion in debt for a 10-percent stake in the restructured GM, had rejected the automaker's offer. GM confirmed that the number of bondholders who agreed to the deal "was substantially less" than the amount required by the U.S. Department of Treasury. "
And so once again, the bondholders (who are in fact speculators, just like any other purchaser of equities which include bonds and stocks that could either go up or down in value) have thrown a monkey wrench into the works.
I will say that said bondholders have a bit stronger case here...the deal they were offered wasn't a very good one.
Is it on a comeback. Some Saudi oil minister shoots his mouth off because he can't pay his bills on $2.40 gas and within hours, gas is up over 10%.
$2.40 gas is $3.15 a day to commute to work in 22 mpg car. If 80% of us commute less than 40 miles, I question the need for a $40k car.
It seems like it comes down to a battle of 2 theories. One theory is oil will rise again and keep going up, regardless of the world grinding to a halt due to inability to pay. It calls for the masses to drop their V6 cars and run to the Prius dealers.
The other theory is that we are a poor nation in a poorer world. There are about 40 million really good jobs in a country of 310 million. We can't afford Prius's just because gas is $4. The economy will grind to a halt and speculators will bail on oil futures and the price will fall harder than it rose.
How China's graduating of 6 million people a year from 4 yr college will play into this will be interesting.
Have you seen ford's stock prices lately? I would not be suprise when 2nd qtr sales comes in ford will be the big winner. the F150 should dominate the truck market and give ford more than enough money to get through the recession.
And so once again, the bondholders (who are in fact speculators, just like any other purchaser of equities which include bonds and stocks that could either go up or down in value) have thrown a monkey wrench into the works.
It is secured by the assets of the company. It is not like stock that can fluctuate. When the bonds come due they are worth a fixed amount. Plus they pay an interest on the money invested. I think the GM & C bondholders have more rights by law than the UAW retirees and their gold plated health care plan. Secured debt has more protection than unsecured where you trust the borrower to pay you back on his good word.
I have real estate bonds that pay about 7.5% interest every month. When they come due I expect to get ALL my money back. I would not settle for 10 cents on the dollar. I would expect the property to be sold and take my share of the proceeds. This is so basic to our law I don't understand why people think the bond holders are a bunch of crooks.
I have real estate bonds that pay about 7.5% interest every month. When they come due I expect to get ALL my money back. I would not settle for 10 cents on the dollar. I would expect the property to be sold and take my share of the proceeds. This is so basic to our law I don't understand why people think the bond holders are a bunch of crooks.
Exactly!!! There are lots of people just like you who are retail investors whom invested their hard earned money into GM bonds with the idea to provide some retirement income. First they probably never dreamed GM would possibly default when they invested their money, and second they believed a bankruptcy proceeding would help protect them. Yet idiots like Keith Olbermann classify all of these people as evil greedy capitalists who are out to destroy the country. Whatever, no way would I just tell GM it's okay to pay me 10 cents on the dollar. I'd vote for bankruptcy court too.
It is secured by the assets of the company. It is not like stock that can fluctuate. When the bonds come due they are worth a fixed amount. Plus they pay an interest on the money invested.
You know how often companies default on bonds? Especially so-called "junk bonds" which GM and C bonds should have been classified as long ago? Happens all the time. And the bond values do fluctuate through buying and selling. What you're referring to is redemption value at the end of the bond term, not current selling value of the bond. There's "face value" and then there's what you can get someone to pay you for the bond. It's a good bet that if someone's offering you 10 cents on the dollar for your bonds and no one's offering more than that, then it's pretty likely that no one thinks they'll be redeemable for face value, ever.
I have real estate bonds that pay about 7.5% interest every month. When they come due I expect to get ALL my money back. I would not settle for 10 cents on the dollar. I would expect the property to be sold and take my share of the proceeds.
News flash: if the proceeds amount to 5 cents on the dollar after liquidation, guess what you get? Some people won't even get that much, if their bonds are junior to yours. What are you going to say to them? Too bad, my bonds are better than your bonds? Or do they have the right to expect all their money back too, just like you? Incidentally, what's the face value of your bonds versus the current selling price on the exchanges? Always a good idea to keep an eye on that..if selling price has dropped way below redemption value, it might be a good idea to unload them.
Plus, in this market, unloading real-estate....dicey at best. You might not even get 5 cents on the dollar if they can't sell the property. :shades:
Investment involves risk. Even bond investments. If you're not willing to stomach risk, stick your money in an FDIC-insured account. It's that simple.
Yet idiots like Keith Olbermann classify all of these people as evil greedy capitalists who are out to destroy the country.
I wouldn't go that far...not evil. But people need to understand that investment involves the risk of loss. Any investment. Period. Unfortunately, some people (large and small investors) feel that they should be insulated from that risk, and that's just wrong.
Just as wrong as over-insulating the UAW from risk, by the way. But assuming a level playing field, my best guesstimate is that said bondholders would have gotten maybe 25 cents on the dollar, and probably still wouldn't have accepted it (the 10 cent/dollar deal did coddle the UAW a bit too much).
You can spin those ideas in your mind all day and it does not change the facts. The bondholders have security that is redeemed at the liquidation of the company they invested in. They probably did due diligence and are pretty sure the parts are worth a lot more than the whole. Making C7 the way to go.
Fact: bondholders are hoping they can get face value for their bonds
Fact: They haven't sold the bonds because no one will pay very much for them
Fact: No one will pay very much for them because there isn't enough value in the company to cover face value
Fact: Bond buyers were stupid enough to buy tens of billions of dollars worth of bonds from a company that had maybe a billion in assets.
Conclusion: No one's going to get face value for their bonds.
These are facts. One other fact, which should horrify everyone, is that, now that GM is flush with taxpayer money, some of the larger bondholders can use Ch7 to try and collect that taxpayer money. I mentioned this when the bondholders were gumming up the works with Chrysler, and I figured they'd try again, too. I'm sensing some of the larger bondholders gearing up for another go. Unfortunately, with the UAW getting a comparatively sweetheart deal, they might have a better shot at our taxpayer money. This should frighten everyone.
One other fact, which should horrify everyone, is that, now that GM is flush with taxpayer money, some of the larger bondholders can use Ch7 to try and collect that taxpayer money.
I don't believe that is the case. In liquidation, the bond holders would rank below something like $6 billion in senior secured debt and the governments $21 billion. Bond holders will not get any government money. In reality, they'll probably get nothing or a penny or two on the dollar. I believe the treasury will get paid back first, then the senior secured debt, then the bond holders will get any crumbs that are left over if their is liquidation, which I don't think is going to happen. With Chapter 11, GM will be given $30 billion in debtor-in-possession financing so they can make it through the restructuring. I don't see the bond holders getting much of anything.
They're not supposed to. They're going to try anyway. They think they can get a lot more than the 10 cents on the dollar this way, otherwise they wouldn't try, would they? The argument is the whole ex-post-facto adjustment of debt seniority (which was put in specifically so that they COULDN'T collect the taxpayer bailout money in a Ch7 proceeding).
This is why they wanted bailouts in the first place...get taxpayers to flush cash into the company, then collect it in Ch7.
They're not supposed to. They're going to try anyway. They think they can get a lot more than the 10 cents on the dollar this way, otherwise they wouldn't try, would they? The argument is the whole ex-post-facto adjustment of debt seniority (which was put in specifically so that they COULDN'T collect the taxpayer bailout money in a Ch7 proceeding).
This is why they wanted bailouts in the first place...get taxpayers to flush cash into the company, then collect it in Ch7.
Not going to happen. Chapter 11 will take place the company will be reorganized along with debt and most the bond holders will lose out. No matter what, if the company ends up being liquidated the treasury will get paid back before the bond holders. Who's really going to make out are the lawyers, consultants, and anyone involved in the bankruptcy process. I heard the fees which will be collected in this process are going to be huge.
I think one of the biggest obstacles to the bond holder deal is that the auto task force told GM, they had to get 90% of the bond holders to accept the 10% equity deal. Even if the bond holders took the deal, chapter 11 was going to be probable. I think the biggest reason the large bond holders held out is they were unhappy with the UAW's deal and still hope to negotiate a better deal. Getting 90% of any group to agree on anything is a long shot. I read a deal is still being worked on but probably won't have any effect on whether GM files chapter 11 or not and that filing will probably be Monday as that's the deadline from the task force.
It is secured by the assets of the company. It is not like stock that can fluctuate. When the bonds come due they are worth a fixed amount. Plus they pay an interest on the money invested. I think the GM & C bondholders have more rights by law than the UAW retirees and their gold plated health care plan. Secured debt has more protection than unsecured where you trust the borrower to pay you back on his good word.
I heard on the radio the other day that GM's bonds, unlike Chrysler's, are mostly unsecured by assets. That might explain some things. I don't know any details but it is interesting.
The answer is the US needs to lead again in technology...it is a cryin' shame the Prius beat all of our dim-witted Auto companies to the punch, as usual. But I do not have to put up with the idiocy (read: GREED) much longer.
I have to support BO on mandating a stretch MPG goal to the new corporations. I would even go farther than he did, so they are lucky no one voted for me!!!
There is no reason why we could not have more fuel efficient cars produced by US manufacturers. We should be leading instead of DEAD LAST. We are STILL at the mercy of the Oil Cartel and it is getting REAL tired! :mad:
No surprise to me...a certain percent of the bondholders ALSO own CDS's for those bonds. Which means they will get paid FULL FACE VALUE of those instruments. That's why C11 was guaranteed for this looser of a company.
Some analysts said GM's bondholders may be holding out for better terms in bankruptcy. Stephen Lubben, a law professor at Seton Hall University, said unsecured creditors like bondholders often recover 40 percent of their investment in bankruptcy.
"They may not do much better, but they can't do any worse," he said.
Another factor complicating the decision of GM's bondholders: Many large investors hold insurance policies on their bonds known as credit default swaps. Such policies would reimburse bondholders in the event of a "credit event" like a bankruptcy filing.
Investors who hold credit default swaps on GM debt stand to make about $2.33 billion if the insurance contracts are triggered, according to the Depository Trust & Clearing Corp.
Many think Ford is out of the woods and was smart to have done things GM and C didn't. But maybe not so.
Well, since that was an article from 4 months ago, and Ford made the payment everyone was worried about, and sold stock to raise money and was sucessful at it, and Ford stock its worth more than 2x GM, I don't think Ford is quite as concerned about it right now.
Were you just trying to create a panic sell so you could get a better stock price?
"......Yes, one day it will. However they can't expect an early model to sell well at such lofty price, and they can't use the same strategy Prius used because they can't afford more losses. They're simply stuck depending on luck alone."
Well, the web site shows about 43,000 people on an unofficial "waiting list" as wanting one (that, and $2 will get me a cup of coffee, I know). If half end up buying one, Chevy will have sold more than Toyota sold of the Prius in it's first year here, and just about as many as they did in it's second year here. Maybe they will gain some buyers who feel bitten by the last gas spike, and some from "green beans" who just have to have the latset and greatest.
One other thing they may have going for them. Ever since the Volt was announced, it seems as though companies have been tripping all over themselves to come up with a better battery pack, in hopes of landing a contract with one of the mfrs. Maybe this will help lower the price of the technology.
".....No surprise to me...a certain percent of the bondholders ALSO own CDS's for those bonds. Which means they will get paid FULL FACE VALUE of those instruments. That's why C11 was guaranteed for this looser of a company."
And, guess who will be on the hook for that money? We will. Which makes me wonder why, if the Gov't is intent on "saving" GM, they just didn't try to strike a deal with the bondholders months ago, say by putting some of the TARP funds in an escrow and say "look, here's your money, safe and sound. Just back off (for, say 24 months for arguments sake), let GM get their house in order, let's all get through this mess together, and THEN GM can start paying you back, with interest."
Then, if GM still goes belly up, the Gov't would have made the bondholders whole.
I heard on the radio the other day that GM's bonds, unlike Chrysler's, are mostly unsecured by assets. That might explain some things. I don't know any details but it is interesting.
GM has another $20M+ in unsecured debt that is not being discussed. Before their VEBA payout, GM was over $60B in debt (based on an interview with Fritz Henderson). I'm assuming the unsecured debt will be completely wiped out with a chap. 11 filing. Chrysler also had unsecured debt. Not sure the amount and what happened to it.
I'm liking this discussion on bondholders. it gives you a better understanding of what is going on with GM and how complex the situation is.
We are headed in the opposite direction than to lead in technology. Every time a foreign car rings a sale, and a US based R&D company DOES NOT, the financial base from which to develop technology erodes. Beat us to the punch? I find it hard to believe buying made in Japan helps against the oil cartel.
Ford has done everything they need to do to change their business model. They have improved the quality of their products and have made their entire product line competitive with some nice products in the pipeline. They need the economy to continue to improve so they can sell more cars. Plus not taking the government cheese....I mean loans has improved their image.
Bingo! My next car will be a Ford. It's no longer a level playing field. It's Obama vs. the rest!
Before this thing is over the U.S. Gov't will have dumped $150 billion into the GM rathole. That's $1,000 for every taxpayer in the United States. I am being forced to support a company the has failed and I will never consider a GM product again.
I am being forced to support a company the has failed and I will never consider a GM product again.
My guess is we are in the Majority with that opinion. Aside from the fact GM has nothing I want, other than a Corvette. Wife says I am too old for one. I am thinking of buying a Ford PU just to show my support for them.
when GM goes bankrupt this weekend, will production stop in all of its plants like it did at Chrysler? And if so, will it stay halted until the bankruptcy is resolved?
That just might be the death knell for half or more of its dealers.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
We are headed in the opposite direction than to lead in technology. Every time a foreign car rings a sale, and a US based R&D company DOES NOT, the financial base from which to develop technology erodes. Beat us to the punch? I find it hard to believe buying made in Japan helps against the oil cartel.
So you agree that by driving US jobs offshore due to high manufacturing costs, the UAW has aided in the destruction of a key technology base?
I'd still consider one, but what I might do is just tell the dealer they need to knock another $1000 off, since they already got that from me in the bailout.
Comments
Except for one thing. Supposedly the gas engine never charges the battery.
This should explain it (from the Q&A section):
Q: When the battery is depleted down to 30% SOC (state of charge)after 40 miles, why is it maintained there instead of the generator recharging it?
A: Powering the electric motor directly from the generator is more efficient than repeatedly charging and discharging the battery.
All batteries have some internal electrical resistance. Whenever the battery is charged or discharged, some energy is lost in the form of heat due to this resistance. By powering the motor directly from the generator, this resistance is bypassed. Energy is lost in this manner when charging the battery and when utilizing the electric range, but this is unavoidable and the energy loss is small compared to the energy wasted by an internal combustion engine.
A: If the generator recharged the battery, this would prevent taking advantage of the main feature of the Volt, which is to recharge it with grid electricity.
A: Cycling the battery more often would reduce its lifetime.
Regards,
OW
Plug-in EV should not use any gasoline at all, in their purest form.
The Volt may wind up being "Just Almost Good Enough" at best.
Regards,
OW
That appears to be incorrect. Is the GM-Volt site an official GM site or independently run? From the GM-Volt FAQ:
"Those who follow this site closely should have a good understanding of the relationship between the generator and the battery in the Chevy Volt. Unfortunately Edmunds did not, stating that the engine does not recharge the battery, and created a bit of an Internet frenzy over, well, nothing, they were just wrong.
The battery is recharged by the engine, but only as little as possible. The point is to avoid petroleum use."
While this may be true, we're here to discuss things, not mock one another. I'd call you an A$$Hle, but it would cause my post to get bumped off prior to you reading it, so arrogant will do.
Probably the truest statement made during this entire discussion on the Volt.
This is a nice debate but to be honest, the Volt will likely not be produced by GM. Also, there are probably 2-3 other manufacturers that will beat GM to the market with more practical plug-ins. As someone else mentioned, we should be on the 2nd or 3rd generation Volt.
The Volt may now be targeted at $40K, and (HOPEFULLY) they can get that down some in 18 months via the battery pack. But at some point, the battery tech. WILL bring the price down.
BTW, I didn't realize this, but the Volt is slated to be built on the same assembly line as the Cruze, so this should help cut assembly costs, as it doen't need it's own plant.
Yes, but unlike an EV (w/a 40 mile range), you can go more than 20 miles w/o being stranded.
I can't tell. It appears to be GM run.
We do have some Volt specific discussions btw - I think this is the main one:
Will the Chevy Volt Succeed?
2.5 times the rt electrical range would be 100 miles. 5 times the max range would be 1750 miles (350 total miles including using the gas). What EV does this???
The Volt perfectly typifies, IMO, everything wrong with GM in the last 30 years. They were behind the competition, in this case the competition was hybrids from the Japanese companies, and instead of putting a workable hybrid on the street to give themselves a 35 mpg family sedan, they chose to shoot for being the grandaddy of an entirely new field of alternative propulsion. By trying to be the big shots, they missed the fact that the corporation was bankrupt under their feet, and that they had no product to offer a $4 gasoline world.
If there is anything left to the American business ethic of rewarding the successes and penalizing the failures, this company must declare bankruptcy this weekend. Maybe in some fire sale of GM assets a company with a closer eye on reality will pick up the Volt research and development where GM left off, and turn it into something real.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The original Prius was sold for a loss. It was sold to the public simply for 3 purposes:
1. To pass the federal requirements and California's on emmisions laws
2. To recoup some of the losses from the massive R&D bill.
3. To test the market reactions towards hybrids and to build their hybrids' reputation.
Being (at that time) the most profitable car manufacturer in the world enabled Toyota to do so. They did the same thing with Rav-EV, and dropped the project since it received cold reaction from the market.
Now Prius is sold for more and more, perhaps still making measly profit at best, but the arrival of Lexus HS will certainly be aimed at real profits.
The Volt may now be targeted at $40K, and (HOPEFULLY) they can get that down some in 18 months via the battery pack. But at some point, the battery tech. WILL bring the price down.
Yes, one day it will. However they can't expect an early model to sell well at such lofty price, and they can't use the same strategy Prius used because they can't afford more losses. They're simply stuck depending on luck alone.
Because Honda priced the Insight low which forces Toyota to meet that price. The Volt should have been a Caddy to justify it's price point and then the tech could filter down to Chevy. Now, a Chevy costing more than the competition which have added loads of luxo feature to their hybrids are pushing the bar lower...Chevy will not be able to compete mass market with a costly PEHV.
That's the argument.
Regards,
OW
As of now, the owners R' US...alone with a failed gargantuan skeleton that was once GM with 50% market share....it was theirs to loose and by Golly, they sure did a great job!!
Nice work...now we'll really see a foreign influx of capital and technology that should have been going the other way...remember those days? :sick:
Oh, BTW give Mr. Anwl my message...be careful Edmund's doesn't wind up like GM. Making stupid statements is just the beginning.
Regards,
OW
I have no doubt the Roger Penske, Toyota, Honda or whoever will wind up with the rights to the Volt will succeed after a time.
The point again would have been the target price of the Volt set to meet the competition around $25K or upscale it to meet the price. It was never going to be mass market out of the barn. A typical GM decision I will not miss.
'Bye 'Bye, Miss American Pie, drove my Chevy to the Levy BUT THE LEVY RAN DRY!
Regards,
OW
What is Chrysler getting right now? Why play favorites? :confuse:
GM announced Wednesday morning that bondholders, who had until midnight, to trade $27.2 billion in debt for a 10-percent stake in the restructured GM, had rejected the automaker's offer. GM confirmed that the number of bondholders who agreed to the deal "was substantially less" than the amount required by the U.S. Department of Treasury. "
The Only Question: What Day Will GM File for Chapter 11? (AutoObserver)
I will say that said bondholders have a bit stronger case here...the deal they were offered wasn't a very good one.
CNBC's list of top 16 companies:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/29640663/?slide=13
Many think Ford is out of the woods and was smart to have done things GM and C didn't. But maybe not so.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
$2.40 gas is $3.15 a day to commute to work in 22 mpg car. If 80% of us commute less than 40 miles, I question the need for a $40k car.
It seems like it comes down to a battle of 2 theories. One theory is oil will rise again and keep going up, regardless of the world grinding to a halt due to inability to pay. It calls for the masses to drop their V6 cars and run to the Prius dealers.
The other theory is that we are a poor nation in a poorer world. There are about 40 million really good jobs in a country of 310 million. We can't afford Prius's just because gas is $4. The economy will grind to a halt and speculators will bail on oil futures and the price will fall harder than it rose.
How China's graduating of 6 million people a year from 4 yr college will play into this will be interesting.
It is secured by the assets of the company. It is not like stock that can fluctuate. When the bonds come due they are worth a fixed amount. Plus they pay an interest on the money invested. I think the GM & C bondholders have more rights by law than the UAW retirees and their gold plated health care plan. Secured debt has more protection than unsecured where you trust the borrower to pay you back on his good word.
I have real estate bonds that pay about 7.5% interest every month. When they come due I expect to get ALL my money back. I would not settle for 10 cents on the dollar. I would expect the property to be sold and take my share of the proceeds. This is so basic to our law I don't understand why people think the bond holders are a bunch of crooks.
Exactly!!! There are lots of people just like you who are retail investors whom invested their hard earned money into GM bonds with the idea to provide some retirement income. First they probably never dreamed GM would possibly default when they invested their money, and second they believed a bankruptcy proceeding would help protect them. Yet idiots like Keith Olbermann classify all of these people as evil greedy capitalists who are out to destroy the country. Whatever, no way would I just tell GM it's okay to pay me 10 cents on the dollar. I'd vote for bankruptcy court too.
You know how often companies default on bonds? Especially so-called "junk bonds" which GM and C bonds should have been classified as long ago? Happens all the time. And the bond values do fluctuate through buying and selling. What you're referring to is redemption value at the end of the bond term, not current selling value of the bond. There's "face value" and then there's what you can get someone to pay you for the bond. It's a good bet that if someone's offering you 10 cents on the dollar for your bonds and no one's offering more than that, then it's pretty likely that no one thinks they'll be redeemable for face value, ever.
I have real estate bonds that pay about 7.5% interest every month. When they come due I expect to get ALL my money back. I would not settle for 10 cents on the dollar. I would expect the property to be sold and take my share of the proceeds.
News flash: if the proceeds amount to 5 cents on the dollar after liquidation, guess what you get? Some people won't even get that much, if their bonds are junior to yours. What are you going to say to them? Too bad, my bonds are better than your bonds? Or do they have the right to expect all their money back too, just like you? Incidentally, what's the face value of your bonds versus the current selling price on the exchanges? Always a good idea to keep an eye on that..if selling price has dropped way below redemption value, it might be a good idea to unload them.
Plus, in this market, unloading real-estate....dicey at best. You might not even get 5 cents on the dollar if they can't sell the property. :shades:
Investment involves risk. Even bond investments. If you're not willing to stomach risk, stick your money in an FDIC-insured account. It's that simple.
I wouldn't go that far...not evil. But people need to understand that investment involves the risk of loss. Any investment. Period. Unfortunately, some people (large and small investors) feel that they should be insulated from that risk, and that's just wrong.
Just as wrong as over-insulating the UAW from risk, by the way. But assuming a level playing field, my best guesstimate is that said bondholders would have gotten maybe 25 cents on the dollar, and probably still wouldn't have accepted it (the 10 cent/dollar deal did coddle the UAW a bit too much).
Fact: They haven't sold the bonds because no one will pay very much for them
Fact: No one will pay very much for them because there isn't enough value in the company to cover face value
Fact: Bond buyers were stupid enough to buy tens of billions of dollars worth of bonds from a company that had maybe a billion in assets.
Conclusion: No one's going to get face value for their bonds.
These are facts. One other fact, which should horrify everyone, is that, now that GM is flush with taxpayer money, some of the larger bondholders can use Ch7 to try and collect that taxpayer money. I mentioned this when the bondholders were gumming up the works with Chrysler, and I figured they'd try again, too. I'm sensing some of the larger bondholders gearing up for another go. Unfortunately, with the UAW getting a comparatively sweetheart deal, they might have a better shot at our taxpayer money. This should frighten everyone.
I don't believe that is the case. In liquidation, the bond holders would rank below something like $6 billion in senior secured debt and the governments $21 billion. Bond holders will not get any government money. In reality, they'll probably get nothing or a penny or two on the dollar. I believe the treasury will get paid back first, then the senior secured debt, then the bond holders will get any crumbs that are left over if their is liquidation, which I don't think is going to happen. With Chapter 11, GM will be given $30 billion in debtor-in-possession financing so they can make it through the restructuring. I don't see the bond holders getting much of anything.
This is why they wanted bailouts in the first place...get taxpayers to flush cash into the company, then collect it in Ch7.
This is why they wanted bailouts in the first place...get taxpayers to flush cash into the company, then collect it in Ch7.
Not going to happen. Chapter 11 will take place the company will be reorganized along with debt and most the bond holders will lose out. No matter what, if the company ends up being liquidated the treasury will get paid back before the bond holders. Who's really going to make out are the lawyers, consultants, and anyone involved in the bankruptcy process. I heard the fees which will be collected in this process are going to be huge.
I think one of the biggest obstacles to the bond holder deal is that the auto task force told GM, they had to get 90% of the bond holders to accept the 10% equity deal. Even if the bond holders took the deal, chapter 11 was going to be probable. I think the biggest reason the large bond holders held out is they were unhappy with the UAW's deal and still hope to negotiate a better deal. Getting 90% of any group to agree on anything is a long shot. I read a deal is still being worked on but probably won't have any effect on whether GM files chapter 11 or not and that filing will probably be Monday as that's the deadline from the task force.
I heard on the radio the other day that GM's bonds, unlike Chrysler's, are mostly unsecured by assets. That might explain some things. I don't know any details but it is interesting.
I have to support BO on mandating a stretch MPG goal to the new corporations. I would even go farther than he did, so they are lucky no one voted for me!!!
There is no reason why we could not have more fuel efficient cars produced by US manufacturers. We should be leading instead of DEAD LAST. We are STILL at the mercy of the Oil Cartel and it is getting REAL tired! :mad:
Regards,
OW
Some analysts said GM's bondholders may be holding out for better terms in bankruptcy. Stephen Lubben, a law professor at Seton Hall University, said unsecured creditors like bondholders often recover 40 percent of their investment in bankruptcy.
"They may not do much better, but they can't do any worse," he said.
Another factor complicating the decision of GM's bondholders: Many large investors hold insurance policies on their bonds known as credit default swaps. Such policies would reimburse bondholders in the event of a "credit event" like a bankruptcy filing.
Investors who hold credit default swaps on GM debt stand to make about $2.33 billion if the insurance contracts are triggered, according to the Depository Trust & Clearing Corp.
Regards,
OW
CNBC's list of top 16 companies:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/29640663/?slide=13
Many think Ford is out of the woods and was smart to have done things GM and C didn't. But maybe not so.
Well, since that was an article from 4 months ago, and Ford made the payment everyone was worried about, and sold stock to raise money and was sucessful at it, and Ford stock its worth more than 2x GM, I don't think Ford is quite as concerned about it right now.
Were you just trying to create a panic sell so you could get a better stock price?
Well, the web site shows about 43,000 people on an unofficial "waiting list" as wanting one (that, and $2 will get me a cup of coffee, I know). If half end up buying one, Chevy will have sold more than Toyota sold of the Prius in it's first year here, and just about as many as they did in it's second year here. Maybe they will gain some buyers who feel bitten by the last gas spike, and some from "green beans" who just have to have the latset and greatest.
One other thing they may have going for them. Ever since the Volt was announced, it seems as though companies have been tripping all over themselves to come up with a better battery pack, in hopes of landing a contract with one of the mfrs. Maybe this will help lower the price of the technology.
And, guess who will be on the hook for that money? We will. Which makes me wonder why, if the Gov't is intent on "saving" GM, they just didn't try to strike a deal with the bondholders months ago, say by putting some of the TARP funds in an escrow and say "look, here's your money, safe and sound. Just back off (for, say 24 months for arguments sake), let GM get their house in order, let's all get through this mess together, and THEN GM can start paying you back, with interest."
Then, if GM still goes belly up, the Gov't would have made the bondholders whole.
I heard on the radio the other day that GM's bonds, unlike Chrysler's, are mostly unsecured by assets. That might explain some things. I don't know any details but it is interesting.
GM has another $20M+ in unsecured debt that is not being discussed. Before their VEBA payout, GM was over $60B in debt (based on an interview with Fritz Henderson). I'm assuming the unsecured debt will be completely wiped out with a chap. 11 filing. Chrysler also had unsecured debt. Not sure the amount and what happened to it.
I'm liking this discussion on bondholders. it gives you a better understanding of what is going on with GM and how complex the situation is.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////- /////////////////////////////////////
Bingo! My next car will be a Ford. It's no longer a level playing field. It's Obama vs. the rest!
Before this thing is over the U.S. Gov't will have dumped $150 billion into the GM rathole. That's $1,000 for every taxpayer in the United States. I am being forced to support a company the has failed and I will never consider a GM product again.
My guess is we are in the Majority with that opinion. Aside from the fact GM has nothing I want, other than a Corvette. Wife says I am too old for one. I am thinking of buying a Ford PU just to show my support for them.
That just might be the death knell for half or more of its dealers.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
So you agree that by driving US jobs offshore due to high manufacturing costs, the UAW has aided in the destruction of a key technology base?
You have completely said it.
I'd still consider one, but what I might do is just tell the dealer they need to knock another $1000 off, since they already got that from me in the bailout.