One problem with Honda though, is that my local dealer left me with a bad vibe. Back when my Intrepid got totaled last November, I requested a price quote on an Accord. Never did get that quote, but to this day I still get emails from them trying to get me to come in and "talk". Even though I let them know, several times, that I bought another car...almost NINE months ago!
Our local Toyota dealer is pretty bad too. Last time I walked in there, I felt like I was hopping into shark-infested waters with an open wound. Nissan dealer's not bad, though. Off the top of my head, I don't even know where I'd go to look at a Chevy, as the three closest dealers to me closed, and the fourth, I can't stand (although my '85 Silverado originally came from there, when they were under different ownership)
I've had that experience as well.
My daughter purchased a Nissan Altima last year, after comparing several models. In the end, I think she may have liked the Malibu slightly more, but the dealer near her has a reputation (and I DON'T mean that in a positive way- she has a theory that many in the service dept. were former carnival workers). It was enough for her to have no problems deciding on the Altima.
So far, she really likes the Altima with the CVT, although she has said she finds the brakes extremely sensitive compared to other cars she has driven, but certainly no problem.
When I was younger (back in the 1970-80's) it was the foreign makes (at least, where I lived) that had "perceived" horrible reputations. US model dealers were pretty reputable, but no longer. I think that perception has, to a large extent, reversed itself. Of couse, it depends on the dealer, though.
I think GM may have done much better with its dealer's image if it had taken the money it threw out for the Hummer dealerships and focused it more on upgrading the Chevrolet and Buick dealerships.
I used to like the Altima a lot, but I guess it's just getting old now.
There is nothing wrong with the Altima, but it is definitely getting old. I used to like it a lot too. But as newer sedans have been on introduced, the Altima has definitely fallen back some.
I'm a Chevy guy, but I don't like the Traverse at all, styling-wise. I mean, I have an Uplander, but I think it looks better than other vans. It's been fairly inexpensive to operate too, thanks to GM giving me warranty coverage beyond the 3/36 on a couple things.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I think there's just something about the Traverse's style that makes it look like a bloated minivan. The Acadia, and the defunct Saturn Outlook, seemed a bit more squared-off and rugged looking. And the Enclave, while more curvaceous, still comes off looking good IMO. Voluptuous, kinda like Kirstie Alley with a few extra pounds (rather than a few hundred extra...)
I feel the same way about the Altima as well buts its age is catching up with it. The Camry and Altima are the oldest of the mid-size sedans right now and both are due for redesigns next year so that should make a difference for each.
I agree as well, of the bunch the Acadia is the best looking IMO. My girlfriend absolutely wants an Enclave, but I always tell her that I think the Acadia looks better. Of course, I can not make her understand that they are the same vehicle under the sheet metal.. she says "One is a Buick and the other a GMC" I have given up on explaining it.
"......and the momentum is on the high underwear company at the moment imvho."
That is.......until.......you lose your steering and hit a pole. Then those "fewer" Malibu's can go by and beep. Maybe even call 911 for them w/ their OnStar.
I still think it's the wrong time for the IPO, as the market is still too shaky. However, they may be trying to pick and choose who gets the first piece of the pie:
Hmm, interesting. I'll have to check and see how much my "goodwill" asset is valued at. Maybe I'll cash in some and use that to pay my upcoming property taxes! I wonder if GM would take my "goodwill" as payment for a new car? :P
Hmm, interesting. I'll have to check and see how much my "goodwill" asset is valued at. Maybe I'll cash in some and use that to pay my upcoming property taxes! I wonder if GM would take my "goodwill" as payment for a new car? :P
Just one more reason why I have no faith in the intelligence or morals of our leaders. This is the business/accounting version of Catch-22.
I suggest to everyone who has had financial problems in the last few years, to file for an LLC, and your lack of creditworthiness will create a huge swell in wealth - our Goodwill assets will expand, and we can trick investors around the world into investing in our corporations ... tada ... end of U.S. recession. I think I'm going to take that idea onto a TV infomercial; send me $99.95 for the DVD and book on how to become a Goodwill millionaire!
The thing I don't understand is how did a new company get all of that goodwill to begin with? I believe goodwill basically reflects the excess of share value over book value in the equity portion of the balance sheet?
Government Motors' new CEO Dan Akerson told GM employees today that the automaker will go into "attack mentality" and made a small attack of his own against the Obama administration's economic policies, noting "I vote Republican."
It may, but I believe "Goodwill" also encompasses the potential value the company sees in intangibles, like its trademarks and reputations. That would be a company like Coke or Apple saying their trademarks and market-recognition are worth X billions-of-$ because people will always buy that. Or it can be the value the company sees in its patents and undisclosed Trade Secrets.
So GM is valuing it's names like Buick, Chevrolet, Cadillac, Corvette, GMC, its patents, and other intelligence at a lofty $30B. It sounds extremely high, given the combined value of what Saab, Hummer, and Saturn were worth last year. I guess GM justifies that value as they figure those nameplates are worth their customers loyalty to buy so many vehicles out into the future. It is a legit Accounting method, but it is a devil to an investor if they don't understand that.
So GM is valuing it's names like Buick, Chevrolet, Cadillac, Corvette, GMC, its patents, and other intelligence at a lofty $30B.
The word intelligence and GM should never be used in the same sentence;)
It is a legit Accounting method, but it is a devil to an investor if they don't understand that.
True, and that is why anyone wanting to keep their investments must study both the income and balance sheet statements to investigate further to determine if a company is legitimately earning money.
The fact that GM admits it has issues with internal controls automatically tells me to stay away for now.
I'm not a CPA and have always found intangible assets, well - a bit intangible. But for a going concern the left and right sides of the balance sheet need to balance. I'm presuming the financial data is somewhat pro forma for the new GM at this point. Since the new GM doesn't have any "market value" public stock issued yet I've got to look at other areas. It reduced its debt substantially in the old GM BK on the backs of its bondholders and stockholders. The new GM shouldn't have much in the way of capital surplus or accumulated retained earnings yet either. The BK also probably significantly reduced capital assets, likely by a greater degree than it did debt, as they were able to shed plants and equipment in the BK. Bottom line; I've got to wonder if the high intangible asset balance it a quirk because at this point maybe all of this goodwill is just a balancing mechanism. If the new stock offering goes badly it may disappear in a hurry?
I don't know about that; it's the lawyers who become the legislators who set the rules of the games for the accountants. And then the accountants are only the low-paid lackeys for the corporate executives, who get their buddies elected to write the rules.
The accountants just do as they are told so they can work 40 years at a middling salary.
But then you get back to GM, and you look at their internal organization, and wonder who caused them to fail - and you just come to the conclusion that it was everybody in GM - executives and union.
I still don't see much different in the vehicles, marketing, structure, or operating philosophy that leads me to believe GM will be successful. Odds are they will slowly drift down to Chrysler's status and marketshare. Maybe next decade, they won't be considered "too big to fail".
Roger Smith was an accountant - 'nuff said! As far as I'm concerned, he's one of the 20th Century's worst monsters; down there with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Idi Amin!
Roger Smith was an accountant - 'nuff said! As far as I'm concerned, he's one of the 20th Century's worst monsters; down there with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Idi Amin!
Well, I probably wouldn't use that strong of words, but he certainly was a terrible CEO for GM. We need accountants, Lawyers, and marketing people, but I don't like seeing them at the helm of our leading manufacturing companies.
Roger Smith was an accountant - 'nuff said! As far as I'm concerned, he's one of the 20th Century's worst monsters; down there with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Idi Amin!
Nah, his real problem was that he drank the Cool-Aid given out by the various schools of economics that everyone appears to love in the Western World.
So why don't any of them really work when you compare it to plain common sense? Why do they always make the problem worse?
1 - Every situation in life is a non-repeatable and unique situation. Solutions must be custom-tailored to be truly effective. This is problem #1 with schools of thought and theories, be it Psychology or Accounting. If it doesn't fit in the box neatly, you're screwed. When billions are at stake, hammering it into the box by brute force simply doesn't work.(seethe following link for a car-based visual reference of this technique at solving problems in action) :P
2 - Not one of the current economic theories/schools of thought take into one simple factor. Human nature. They assume a nice and clean model based upon math and statistics. But common sense(by comparison) knows that some people will actively strive to break and destroy the system in order to profit from it. The theories don't assume this at all as part of the original scenario, and a fun way to make steam come out of your professor's ears in such a class is to ask "so how resistant to abuse and crime is this theory?"
It sounds good, it looks like it should work, but it's like having a store in a bad neighborhood without any locks on the doors. A 9 year old will tell you that you shouldn't leave your doors unlocked. But these guys just don't get it.
So if anything, I really just feel sorry for the poor guy. Because he spent his life following a rose-tinted view of economics (and management by extension) instead of one based upon reality.
Oh - and (3) - Obviously managing skills don't come from studying theories and so on. That's the other problem with people like him in general when it comes to running things. They always assume that if you try hard enough you can make it work out nice and clean(like their theories). Real management, as even a basic MBA holder will tell you automatically assumes that the situation is screwed up and your job is to merely make it less so. One guy will try to make everything "correct"(and waste tons of time NOT innovating or fixing things in the proces) and the other is happy if nothing blew up or caught on fire at the end of the day.
Nice summary, and not just for the Roger Smith era but for any CEO.
Take IBM in the early 90's. They were getting their lunch handed to them (or stolen from them, depending upon your perspective) by their competition. They had an outdated product set that was relied upon too heavily, and needed fresh thinking.
Enter Lou Gertsner. He turned IBM almost upside down in his attempt to bring back the glory (sorta like Mullaly is doing now with Ford). It took a lot of hard work, layoffs and an overhaul of the corporate culture (services? what are they and how do I sell them instead of mainframes?) but he was successful.
GM needs that out-of-the-box thinking as well from its upper management.
I'm thinking Whitacre and Ackerson may look good longer term. But GM probably needs a good 5 years before it accomplishes any really significant turnaround.
As for Roger Smith, I certainly don't consider him one of GM's best CEO's. However, his timing in the 80's also played into it. This was during the nadir of Detroit as the Japanese were coming on strong. Smith faced tightening finances, increased competition, an out of whack UAW payroll, soaring interest rates, etc. Back then GM stock wasn't much unlike an Utility; the stockholders wanted steady or growing dividends sucking up precious cash. I think Smith tried to do some new things to gain efficiencies to offset being hamstrung by the UAW and a poor economy. Not just Saturn, but he moved into Asian joint ventures and more automation (although Fanuc robotics would turn out to have a lot of issues). However, his cost structure also brought on cheapness and quality issues, and I think he was unable to turn the GM culture around (maybe he was too much a product of it?).
My picks for worst auto CEO of the past several decades would include Jacques Nasser (and I don't think his predecessor, Sir Whatever his name was did too well either). He took a flush and improving Ford, and IMO flushed the liquidity down the drain on a lot of foolish ventures and acquisitions. This also took leadership eyes off of the primary automotive line focus hurting quality and product development. I think those sucking noises had some impact on the desperate financial gamble that Mulally ended up having to take.
But my pick for absolute worst would be Dr Z and the Daimler Benz crew at Chrysler. Outside of the 300, they seemed to have basically destroyed product innovation and excitement while letting quality continue to fall behind the competition. I think Chrysler is struggling because of "ugly and poorly built" really hurting the company then and they are fighting with few remaining resources to turn it around today.
Nah, Whitacre rolled out the B.S. just like post-C11...not impressive in the least.
The guys from Hyundai will shake things up, that's for sure...check out their Sept. sales rate. Those guys at GM helped build that foundation at the High Undergarment Co.
My coworker and I have called James Healey "Mr. Cupholder" for over a decade! Seems like he's big on stuff like that and 'tactile' things, while overlooking things like space.
He typically fawns over imports and yawns over anything with a Big Three nameplate.
I emailed him once and told him the "Mr. Cupholder" line. He did have enough of a sense of humor to respond that he "...liked that!".
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
The truth of the matter is that most people (NOT the ones that post on this board) care more about cup holders than horsepower. As for imports, not with standing Ford recent rise, the imports have taken a greater share of the market over time. Just look at the Toyota Camry, even with all the SUA problems, it IS STILL in the top ten in sales.
It's always interesting to visit Europe. Had not been in Italy before. Lots of typical small and very small cars. Tons of Mercedes, Audi, VW, Fiat, Alfa Romeos, Renaults. Quite a few Toyotas and a lot of Fords. Saw the C-Max and the Fiesta a lot. Almost no Hondas. And almost no GM cars. I did see a Cruze or two and a Chevy subcompact whose name I forget. The Cruze looked ok but is not beautiful or anything. I think it is bit too bland for where it should be in styling for the US. Hopefully other qualities make up for that. I don't really see why one would buy a Cruze over competitors but perhaps there is something we don't know yet.
I spent eight days in Italy this summer. I saw some Opels and something badged as a Chevy I had never seen before, but mostly saw Fiat 500's, then Smart cars, then Ford Focus models of the previous iteration available here in the 'States.
As a 52-year old guy, I like the looks of the Cruze and detest what I think is the "boy racer" look of the Sonata (although I think the previous Sonata was handsome). Sort of like taking the girl in a black dress and pearls over the trashy-looking one with too much makeup and gaudy colors!
The Cruze is built about 35 miles from here and as GM goes here, so does the rest of the economy so I am hoping it does well. There's not much else in the economy here to be hopeful about--worst I've seen since graduating college in '80, for certain. But not being a 'sheeple', I'll still prefer living in the general area than giving it up and moving someplace else more 'popular'.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I remember in Germany and Switzerland, Toyota vastly outnumbered Honda ...I probably saw more Subarus than Honda too, especially in Switzerland. Of course Germany is very proud, so there are lots of Opels too.
I'll be back there in a couple months. Next year I hope to be able to take a trip around this time of the year, and I might spend a day or two driving through Italy.
Comments
Our local Toyota dealer is pretty bad too. Last time I walked in there, I felt like I was hopping into shark-infested waters with an open wound. Nissan dealer's not bad, though. Off the top of my head, I don't even know where I'd go to look at a Chevy, as the three closest dealers to me closed, and the fourth, I can't stand (although my '85 Silverado originally came from there, when they were under different ownership)
I've had that experience as well.
My daughter purchased a Nissan Altima last year, after comparing several models. In the end, I think she may have liked the Malibu slightly more, but the dealer near her has a reputation (and I DON'T mean that in a positive way- she has a theory that many in the service dept. were former carnival workers). It was enough for her to have no problems deciding on the Altima.
So far, she really likes the Altima with the CVT, although she has said she finds the brakes extremely sensitive compared to other cars she has driven, but certainly no problem.
When I was younger (back in the 1970-80's) it was the foreign makes (at least, where I lived) that had "perceived" horrible reputations. US model dealers were pretty reputable, but no longer. I think that perception has, to a large extent, reversed itself. Of couse, it depends on the dealer, though.
I think GM may have done much better with its dealer's image if it had taken the money it threw out for the Hummer dealerships and focused it more on upgrading the Chevrolet and Buick dealerships.
Just a thought...
Yeah, I don't like them either. The Traverse is definitely the homely version of the Lambdas.
There is nothing wrong with the Altima, but it is definitely getting old. I used to like it a lot too. But as newer sedans have been on introduced, the Altima has definitely fallen back some.
I don't know why but the Traverse doesn't grab me either. I thin given the choice in those I'd take an Acadia.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Icon I6L Golf Cart
I wouldn't kick an Enclave out of my driveway if that's any consolation....
I wonder (but am too lazy to look up) how much more a similarly equipped Enclave would be vs. an Acadia.
link title
It's the CX-9 for me!
Regards,
OW
That is.......until.......you lose your steering and hit a pole. Then those "fewer" Malibu's can go by and beep. Maybe even call 911 for them w/ their OnStar.
Sonata is gonna ====== :lemon: :lemon: :lemon:
Same as it ever was.
http://www.gaskinsco.com/linkto-gm3.shtml
Rots 'o Ruck :lemon:
Regards,
OW
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/09/05/u-s-to-limit-foreign-investors-in-gm-ipo/
LOL!
I suggest to everyone who has had financial problems in the last few years, to file for an LLC, and your lack of creditworthiness will create a huge swell in wealth - our Goodwill assets will expand, and we can trick investors around the world into investing in our corporations ... tada ... end of U.S. recession. I think I'm going to take that idea onto a TV infomercial; send me $99.95 for the DVD and book on how to become a Goodwill millionaire!
Government Motors' new CEO Dan Akerson told GM employees today that the automaker will go into "attack mentality" and made a small attack of his own against the Obama administration's economic policies, noting "I vote Republican."
So GM is valuing it's names like Buick, Chevrolet, Cadillac, Corvette, GMC, its patents, and other intelligence at a lofty $30B. It sounds extremely high, given the combined value of what Saab, Hummer, and Saturn were worth last year. I guess GM justifies that value as they figure those nameplates are worth their customers loyalty to buy so many vehicles out into the future. It is a legit Accounting method, but it is a devil to an investor if they don't understand that.
The word intelligence and GM should never be used in the same sentence;)
It is a legit Accounting method, but it is a devil to an investor if they don't understand that.
True, and that is why anyone wanting to keep their investments must study both the income and balance sheet statements to investigate further to determine if a company is legitimately earning money.
The fact that GM admits it has issues with internal controls automatically tells me to stay away for now.
Not a very positive review of the 2.4 4cyl model. I can't say I'm not surprised.
Oh wait, it's German... :P
Yawner otherwise. :shades:
Damn!!!
The accountants just do as they are told so they can work 40 years at a middling salary.
But then you get back to GM, and you look at their internal organization, and wonder who caused them to fail - and you just come to the conclusion that it was everybody in GM - executives and union.
I still don't see much different in the vehicles, marketing, structure, or operating philosophy that leads me to believe GM will be successful. Odds are they will slowly drift down to Chrysler's status and marketshare. Maybe next decade, they won't be considered "too big to fail".
Well, I probably wouldn't use that strong of words, but he certainly was a terrible CEO for GM. We need accountants, Lawyers, and marketing people, but I don't like seeing them at the helm of our leading manufacturing companies.
Whitacre seems to have done ok and he was a big ad guy for a while there.
I don't know enough about here to comment, but I do remember the Compaq acquisition no being well received.
Whitacre seems to have done ok and he was a big ad guy for a while there.
Well I would have to with the backing of the government;) He doesn't hold a candle to what Mulally has accomplished at Ford.
Granted their are always exceptions.
She did such a good job she's now running for the US Senate in California!
And, another ex-CEO - Meg Whitman of eBay - is running for governor in CA.
Nah, his real problem was that he drank the Cool-Aid given out by the various schools of economics that everyone appears to love in the Western World.
So why don't any of them really work when you compare it to plain common sense? Why do they always make the problem worse?
1 - Every situation in life is a non-repeatable and unique situation. Solutions must be custom-tailored to be truly effective. This is problem #1 with schools of thought and theories, be it Psychology or Accounting. If it doesn't fit in the box neatly, you're screwed. When billions are at stake, hammering it into the box by brute force simply doesn't work.(seethe following link for a car-based visual reference of this technique at solving problems in action) :P
http://jalopnik.com/5176055/30-epic-do+it+yourself-automotive-fabrication-failur- - - es
2 - Not one of the current economic theories/schools of thought take into one simple factor. Human nature. They assume a nice and clean model based upon math and statistics. But common sense(by comparison) knows that some people will actively strive to break and destroy the system in order to profit from it. The theories don't assume this at all as part of the original scenario, and a fun way to make steam come out of your professor's ears in such a class is to ask "so how resistant to abuse and crime is this theory?"
It sounds good, it looks like it should work, but it's like having a store in a bad neighborhood without any locks on the doors. A 9 year old will tell you that you shouldn't leave your doors unlocked. But these guys just don't get it.
So if anything, I really just feel sorry for the poor guy. Because he spent his life following a rose-tinted view of economics (and management by extension) instead of one based upon reality.
Oh - and (3) - Obviously managing skills don't come from studying theories and so on. That's the other problem with people like him in general when it comes to running things. They always assume that if you try hard enough you can make it work out nice and clean(like their theories). Real management, as even a basic MBA holder will tell you automatically assumes that the situation is screwed up and your job is to merely make it less so. One guy will try to make everything "correct"(and waste tons of time NOT innovating or fixing things in the proces) and the other is happy if nothing blew up or caught on fire at the end of the day.
It's hard to do poorly when you are already at the bottom. :P
Take IBM in the early 90's. They were getting their lunch handed to them (or stolen from them, depending upon your perspective) by their competition. They had an outdated product set that was relied upon too heavily, and needed fresh thinking.
Enter Lou Gertsner. He turned IBM almost upside down in his attempt to bring back the glory (sorta like Mullaly is doing now with Ford). It took a lot of hard work, layoffs and an overhaul of the corporate culture (services? what are they and how do I sell them instead of mainframes?) but he was successful.
GM needs that out-of-the-box thinking as well from its upper management.
As for Roger Smith, I certainly don't consider him one of GM's best CEO's. However, his timing in the 80's also played into it. This was during the nadir of Detroit as the Japanese were coming on strong. Smith faced tightening finances, increased competition, an out of whack UAW payroll, soaring interest rates, etc. Back then GM stock wasn't much unlike an Utility; the stockholders wanted steady or growing dividends sucking up precious cash. I think Smith tried to do some new things to gain efficiencies to offset being hamstrung by the UAW and a poor economy. Not just Saturn, but he moved into Asian joint ventures and more automation (although Fanuc robotics would turn out to have a lot of issues). However, his cost structure also brought on cheapness and quality issues, and I think he was unable to turn the GM culture around (maybe he was too much a product of it?).
My picks for worst auto CEO of the past several decades would include Jacques Nasser (and I don't think his predecessor, Sir Whatever his name was did too well either). He took a flush and improving Ford, and IMO flushed the liquidity down the drain on a lot of foolish ventures and acquisitions. This also took leadership eyes off of the primary automotive line focus hurting quality and product development. I think those sucking noises had some impact on the desperate financial gamble that Mulally ended up having to take.
But my pick for absolute worst would be Dr Z and the Daimler Benz crew at Chrysler. Outside of the 300, they seemed to have basically destroyed product innovation and excitement while letting quality continue to fall behind the competition. I think Chrysler is struggling because of "ugly and poorly built" really hurting the company then and they are fighting with few remaining resources to turn it around today.
The guys from Hyundai will shake things up, that's for sure...check out their Sept. sales rate. Those guys at GM helped build that foundation at the High Undergarment Co.
Regards,
OW
He typically fawns over imports and yawns over anything with a Big Three nameplate.
I emailed him once and told him the "Mr. Cupholder" line. He did have enough of a sense of humor to respond that he "...liked that!".
As a 52-year old guy, I like the looks of the Cruze and detest what I think is the "boy racer" look of the Sonata (although I think the previous Sonata was handsome). Sort of like taking the girl in a black dress and pearls over the trashy-looking one with too much makeup and gaudy colors!
The Cruze is built about 35 miles from here and as GM goes here, so does the rest of the economy so I am hoping it does well. There's not much else in the economy here to be hopeful about--worst I've seen since graduating college in '80, for certain. But not being a 'sheeple', I'll still prefer living in the general area than giving it up and moving someplace else more 'popular'.
I remember in Germany and Switzerland, Toyota vastly outnumbered Honda ...I probably saw more Subarus than Honda too, especially in Switzerland. Of course Germany is very proud, so there are lots of Opels too.
I'll be back there in a couple months. Next year I hope to be able to take a trip around this time of the year, and I might spend a day or two driving through Italy.