By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Comparitively, it looks like Government Motors has abour twice as many.
link title
Since when does revenue equal the ability to repay debts and stay in business. If it did, GM would not have gone bankrupt.
Maybe where you live, the fall of the auto industry didn't knock 20% off the value of everyone's house in the entire county like it did where I live.
No the auto industry didn't knock off 20% of the value of my house, but the credit crisis and housing bubble popping have. My parents are now asking 50% less for their house in Florida than they were asking 2 years ago and there is not an auto plant within 500+ miles.
If anything the housing market caused GM's collapse (GMAC's bad loans cost GM billions). The building and credit bubble allowed GM to sell lots of trucks and when that popped, so did GM (well not really, GM was already essentially dead). The housing industry is estimated to be nearly 18% of GDP, making the auto industry small by comparison. I don't know many out of work autoworkers, my BIL who works for a auto supplier in Michigan is still working, but I know several out of work teamsters who are heavy equipment operators, brick layers, and ready mix truck drivers..
If you lost 20% of your home value, what would blame the mess on? mismanagement by a handful of execs?
I blame lots of people, like the millions who thought buying a house they couldn't afford was a good idea, along with those who told them it was. Also, those who thought their house appreciating on paper 50% meant it was free money to borrow against, along with those who also said that was a good idea. Of course those who loaned the money
I blame the fed monetary policy for keeping interest rates to low, and government policy that encouraged more borrowing and lending. Plenty of blame to go around.
As far as GM, I mainly blame management. I think the UAW should take some of the blame too, but GM management has been horrible for 40 years. But they didn't cause the mess we are in. GM bonds were rated junk status in 05 and was in serious trouble then.
And GM will repay tax payer money !! LOL !! Thanks for the hilarious laugh ! :P
Maybe, but it would more like me borrowing $15K for a car when i had no income and huge debt.
According to a WSJ article in 2008 all of the foreign manufactures operating plants in the US employ about 113k and many times that indirectly, as that time the domestics employed 239k directly.
Many of the suppliers are supported by all of the manufactures. My BIL works for a tool and die company in Michigan. He does business with Ford, GM, Honda, and Toyota.
4 years ago, some bonehead at GMAC would have probably made the loan too!
It's one thing the crash in 08 taught me - how they'd lend gobs of money to any knucklehead.
Do you think the value of 2 months worth of sales (in debt) drove GM into the depths of failure based on their unforgivable debt load? Do you think someone with a $60K income should service a debt of $200K???
Where ANYONE lives, you bite off more than you can chew and you choke. :P
Regards,
OW
That is the peril of living in a company town. When the company declines and fails, the town does likewise. GM had been steadily declining for decades, and people were predicting its failure years before it finally occurred. No gravy train lasts forever, and the end of this one could be easily seen by those who looked with open eyes.
Here is an article from Fortune in Feb. 2006
The Tragedy of General Motors
Dave, you never answered my question from a while ago. So do you think that the path to US competitiveness is to continue to be inefficient when companies all over the world are more automated than us? Do you really think this would be more than a temporary retention of jobs until a company collapses? (like GM and C did?).
I'd like to understand the logic of why it is better to create way more jobs than a company needs, just so that more workers get paid.
Here in New England we didn't have a real housing development boom, nor do we rely on single-employers or industries. The unemployment rate here in NH is <6%, though surely the underemployed and discouraged is in the 15% range.
Anyway if you look at some of the financial webpages today, you will see that more and more economists now feel a "double-dip" recession is more than likely. As I said several weeks ago, I believe the window for GM to launch its IPO was quickly closing.
Now GM wwill have to consider whether it's sales which have been propped up by fleet-sales, and the worsening economy and stock-market, is going to allow them to launch an IPO in Nov. I doubt it.
While the government stimulus and bailouts gave our ailing patient a pick-me-up, the patient still has the same disease, and we're running low on medicine. If you look back several years, you will see that the government has tried numerous stimulus measures, each one larger than the last, but putting us further and further into debt, making the patient worse.
So now we sit here with nearly 10% unemployment, millions more not counted as unemployed, housing still dead-in-the-water, the national debt larger than ever, local and state governments broke, record trade deficits, interest-rates as low as they can go, and no one credit-worthy wanting to borrow, and GM thinks there's going to be a turnaround of their business? Selling $27K base Regals? Or launch an IPO, as they desperately want to get rid of the feds. Absolute insanity!
The writing was on the wall...
link title
LOL
link title
Saw some reviews in recent car magazines on Regal and consensus is that it is overweight and underpowered.
For same or less money to buy a Buick, the 2011 Hyundai Sonata is a good alternative. It is only offered in 4 cylinder and soon they will offer a 4-cyl turbo with more HP than most competitors having V6's. Gas mileage is very good also.
Check out article in latest Automobile Magazine re ascendency of Hyundai in terms of overall sales, market share and how quickly they make changes and improvements into their products.
if there was any... :confuse:
Domestic car fans were supporting a German car!
No problem. Put excess workers into the Jobs Bank program which was like a day-long high school study hall. Yeah. That will work.
Regards,
OW
I'm getting a sense of deja vu, like when GM thought it would be a good idea to put a 105 hp 231 V-6 in a pre-downsized 70's Regal Coupe. Or worse, a '76 LeSabre!
I do think the new Regal's an attractive looking car. But good looks only get you so far.
I do think the new Regal's an attractive looking car. But good looks only get you so far.
Yeah, I'd certainly avoid the 2.4, seems like a nice car overall, but base power is not enough for how heavy it is. I think the 2.0 turbo model should be enough, but for supposedly being a more premium sporty car, the fact that it will get smoked by a v6 Camry/Fusion/Malibu/Altima and a Turbo Sonota could be a problem, but honestly, those who will buy it probably won't care.
I agree. The direct injected 3.6 would have been a good choice for an engine option. I'd guess it weighs a bit more the the 2.0 Turbo, but at least it would have option to have power that would rival most of the competition.
I'm guessing the future is in smaller displacement turbocharged engines, so I guess the Regal makes sense to test the market and see if people will buy it.
Yeah, but wouldn't that mean that the Regal would start competing against the LaCrosse?
Yeah, I know that the TSX has an optional V6 which some would say makes it a competitor to the TL, but I think the size of those two are distinct enough to keep them separate in the minds of the potential customer.
Also remember that the Regal was developed in Europe as the Opel Insignia and was originally meant to be the new Saturn Aura before GM ditched the Saturn brand last year.
I just checked the Vauxhall site in the UK - the top line VXR trim does come with a turbo 2.8L V6 - not sure if that engine is certified for sale in the US. No NA V6's seem to be available, however.
If GM could get another 15-20 HP out of the 2.4L 4-banger - direct injection, anyone? - then perhaps it could compete better with the 4-cyl TSX.
C'mon, GM - if Hyundai can get almost 200HP out of their 4-cylinder of the same displacement, why can't you?
I think it's smaller and definitely more sporty, so I don't think that would be a problem. Heck GM used to put the 3800 in almost everything it seems.
I just checked the Vauxhall site in the UK - the top line VXR trim does come with a turbo 2.8L V6 - not sure if that engine is certified for sale in the US. No NA V6's seem to be available, however.
I think the 2.8 Turbo was available in the Cadillac SRX for a while, now all I see on the Cadillac website is the unloved 3 liter.
I'd like to understand the logic of why it is better to create way more jobs than a (gov) needs, just so that more workers get paid.
Because of unemployment insurance, they get paid anyway. So a give away is better than a loan?
I have no inclination to investigate these Buicks' content and dimensions, but I believe they already compete against each other - at least in price. The base Lacrosse is only $250 more than the base Regal. From my cursory glance, it looks like the same 2.4L engine.
Does the Regal have more content base than the lacrosse? Isn't the Lacrosse larger?
If GM could get another 15-20 HP out of the 2.4L 4-banger - direct injection, anyone? - then perhaps it could compete better with the 4-cyl TSX.
To choose a Buick over an Acura, and I've bought 4 new GM vehicles between 1994 - 2001, the Buick better have 10% more power, 10% better mpg, and cost 10% less to makeup for my perceptions of GM bankruptcy, poor resale, and ho-hum brand appeal.
That trend has shifted. In many places, renting is now recommended.
I serviced debt of ten times my salary at one point. I had some flaky rental income on the side and mortgages were 10.875% for 15 year fixed back then. How did I do it? I drove a paid off GM that never needed repairs, there was no rental units owned by Japanese that were competitors, and my tax return read: writeoffs=income. While I was doing the above, I got laid off from a defense sector job due to the Clinton's policies (he might have been angry when he read my tax return).
The last time I sold a house that had any appreciation was in 1989. Pool maint workers want $80 an hour, so home ownership costs can get rediculous.
That's no lie. We've sold 4 houses over the past 10 years and may have made $30k on all of them combined, then subtract taxes, interest, and maintenance, and we didn't come close to breaking even.
It's called Deflation.
Get used to it. Unless you have a government job...then you'll still get your raises every year, get your free health care and pension, and pay less for everything.
Does the Regal have more content base than the lacrosse? Isn't the Lacrosse larger?
The LaCrosse is larger. Without looking up the specs, I think it's about 198" long and on a ~113" wb, while the Regal's around 192" long and on a 107.8" wb. I haven't seen a Regal yet, other than on the turntable at an auto show, but have been in a couple LaCrosses, and driven one. The LaCrosse is a VERY comfy 4-seater, with legroom galore, both front and back. I'd consider it tight for 3-across seating, but honestly, I don't think there's been a truly good 3-across car since the last pre-downsized mastodon got downsized. So, the 1979 Lincolns, maybe?
The Regal is tighter inside, from my understanding, mainly in the back seat. But oddly, it has a larger trunk. The LaCrosse has something like 12.9 cubic feet of trunk space, which is tiny, but in person it looked larger to me.
Size-wise, I'd say a LaCrosse is a bit like an Avalon, while a Regal would be more like an Altima or Camry?
IMO, it's a big mistake putting a 4-cyl in the LaCrosse. It's not so great in the Regal, so no good can come of asking it to haul around another 300 or more lb of mass.
So the home borrower has a job (an income) and GM doesn't????????
The 140 million GM vehicles on the roads have hope for continued spare parts, maintenance, and warranty coverage.
I'd have a lot more disposable income too if the government helped me get rid of my mortgage debt.
The 140 million GM vehicles on the roads have hope for continued spare parts, maintenance, and warranty coverage.
And they'll need the parts too;)
They are doing over $11 billion a month in sales. Not quite the $20 billion a month they once did in 1999 when gas was 89 cents a gallon.
That's why they needed to go through bankruptcy to help them get smaller. Less revenue but more profits. Which would you rather have?
I see Whitaker is stepping down Sept. 1st.
Somebody needs to put a lock on that revolving door at the RenCen :P
"BREAKING: Ed Whitacre To Step Down As GM Chairman/CEO"
Never mind, they'll just go out the fire escape to avoid the flames
This is the same marketing type of hype that Wagoner did for so many years IMHO.
I don't doubt that for a second. But, hopefully GM can at least maintain some type profitability.
LOL, can you blame him.
...and 3, before the Cruze is on sale.
I know that if I was going to have a bunch of successes I would stick around to enjoy the limelight.
Everybody's cars need parts. GM has plenty of stars in it's lineup
GM kept the union around to use them to get the bailout. The bailout was needed because of the union costs, the recession, and gas not $1.29 anymore. GM used a crisis to pull some pretty swift shennanigans on us all. Taken from the Rahm Emanual playbook? Now they are a protected species. Union and salary retired workers will get their pensions from PBGC. For every dollar not spent on bailing out GM, more than a dollar went to unemployment compensation because of it.
Sales are sales. Fleet or retail. Just like money is money. After it is in the bank for a day it doesn't matter where it came from. Only 2% of us buy a new car each year. GM haters won't be noticed.
Camaro's and Corvette's will be noticed.
They're probably doing some things like delaying posting liabilities and payments to pension funds, insurance, and suppliers. And without seeing their income statement, it's possible that their bottom-line is being helped by government money tucked into "grants, R&D credits, and other funds".
Right now we don't know if the feds are propping up GM through fleet sales, paying 2X what they need to per vehicle. It would be easy for the government to request specially-outfitted Suburbans, and pay some ridiculous amount to GM; just like the $800 toilet-seats of years past.
There's a reason that business and government are usually kept separate and transactions have to be made public. The closer the government and business are, the more likely the business is unfair for those on the outside. I would have loved for Ford and its stockholders to take a case to the Supreme Court asking for damages for what should have been a large increase in their market-share and profitability when GM and Chrysler went under.
They didn't have any choice. GM was on the path to bankruptcy for the past 20+ years.
Sales are sales.
Not one each dollar earned is attached to dollar + in costs. But that was the old GM. Hopefully with the balance sheet cleaned up. The income statement will continue to be positive.
Which one will not sell enough and why?
Cruze 37 mpg
Volt - first 40 miles without gas
GM stock - $400 million in dividends already paid out
How much will the severe disappointment you are predicting reduce the current $11 billion a month in sales for (No. 1 in N.A.) GM?
That wouldn't shock me one bit GM or any other company. It's not so much lying about the numbers as much as creative accounting. Are they using GAAP? Who knows, we won't really be able analyze GM until they are a public company again.
I'm not saying GM is cooking the books, but no one can say for sure if retained earnings are matching net profit.
Money is money !! LOL !! Taxpayer money is being looted and plundered by UAW unions ! :shades:
If you had been CEO for 8 months and you had a big success coming in 3 months would you quit?
A company coming through BK would lie about the numbers?
It's all about looking as good as possible to get as much money as possible at an IPO. There are a lot of ways to legally (and temporarily) raise profits. Companies do it all the time.
What percent of the $132 billion a year in sales will be negated by Cruze and Volt?
If Cruze and Volt were going to be huge hits, why would a company not wait until those latest wildly successful products were on the market and reviewed by all the auto mags so that the perception of the company were better for the IPO?
Which one will not sell enough and why?
Cruze 37 mpg
Volt - first 40 miles without gas
GM stock - $400 million in dividends already paid out
How much will the severe disappointment you are predicting reduce the current $11 billion a month in sales for (No. 1 in N.A.) GM?
Cruze is not as good as Civic, Mazda 3.
Volt costs way more than a jobless depressed economy is going to pay.
It's not about sales, it is about market perception and thus the price of the new GM stock. If you expect the market to perceive GM better in 3 months then you wait and IPO for a bigger price then. It's also about finishing the IPO so that the government can say they are done with the bailout.
I'll stand by these predictions and let's wait and see:
- GM will continue to lose market share into 2011
- The Cruze will have lukewarm reviews - decent but not better than the segment leaders
- The Volt will be underwhelming for its price and will have some driveability issues which limit it to a niche car
I dunno - he's been living in San Antonio the whole time he's been running GM. Maybe he can't stand the thought of working even a little in Detroit another winter.
I don't know if that means anything or not. I'm thinking his job was mainly to steer GM through bankruptcy. His job is done, so I guess it's time to move on.
Cruze is not as good as Civic, Mazda 3.
At least from what I've read, the Cruze seems to be impressive. A bit on the heavy side, but I've read it's extremely solid and quiet. I think it will be competitive, which is extraordinary for GM. I don't see it being a top seller unless fleets buy it. Regardless of how good it is, I don't think small car buyers are just going to flock to GM, it will take time. Plus the Cruze will have serious competition from the new Focus.
Volt costs way more than a jobless depressed economy is going to pay.
They'll sell every one they make for a while. At least until all of the Birkenstock wearing treehuggers get one. Once the pent up demand is gone, I don't know. Gas is to cheap to spend that kind of money. It will have to feel and drive like a $35k+ car. The subsidized leases and tax rebate will help.