Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
A: Yes, the new company would own the assets and the name would be changed and all of the debt would be jettisoned.
Q: Could the new company sell different cars that are not deemed failure fodder from the past within 3 months?
A: Yes. 2 Divisions would remain, one for cars and trucks and one for Buicks and Caddies. Only the winners live and the junk goes with the UAW debt and the poor bondholders.
Synopsis: Only the strong models survive. The new models would be tailored by the new management without the weight of the Government which has no idea how to motivate the value proposition in the auto industry. Basically, we would have born a company pretty close to a mixture of Hyundai and Ford without the baggage of the same old GM. :shades:
Regards,
OW
I think a lot of people need to get real. No one was going to buy GM. Let's see, the company had a basically unworkable balance sheet and huge potential legal liabilities. Chrysler was looking for its own bailout and Ford was already leveraged up the wazoo looking to reduce its own plants and operations. The Asians want nothing to do with the UAW. The German's already learned about the risks and problems through Daimler's recent prior disaster with Detroit iron. So how would the GM output be replaced? The Asian transplants were already operating near capacity, so it likely would have been done through imports and also resulted in higher vehicle pricing. You can argue an outside industry, but that is also doubtful since the US auto industry already had a bunch of competitors greatly reducing its attractiveness to another player (and these kind of situations almost always have unexpected financial and legal surprises). Just what any successful company is looking for - added fixed costs and potential liabilities. I guess we can continue pretending and say Donald Trump!
Do you rally believe if GM did not exist this country would be any worse off?? A blip on the greed horizon of business. Chrysler could have picked up the slack if their cars were not even worse junk than GM.
Ford seems to be winning very nicely, indeed. (Given GM sells more in China, the best move would have been to slice off GM USA.)
Slap a F-150 on a Silverado and I would not loose even a second of sleep.
Regards,
OW
GM is looking to leverage its IPO to further establish its presence in Asia and is considering using "cornerstone" investors -- investors who commit to buy and hold major stakes in an IPO, and who help attract more investors to large deals by showing they support it -- primarily in Asia, several people have told Reuters.
Remember, GM cares least about employees and customers than with the next potential supporter of their debt.
GM, which is anticipating significant Asian sovereign wealth fund participation, said today it was increasing the offer by 30% to 478m shares to meet demand
Regards,
OW
You're still looking at only the competition side of the equation. You do know that the U.S. is still the world's biggest manufacturer, correct? That Apple is taking the world's electronics by storm due to its innovation, right? That Boeing is one of the two largest makers of commerical airliners, right? That SpaceX is building new rockets that even the Chinese say they don't know how they would compete at those prices.
Things change. I can guarantee you that GM with diseased branches still on the tree is NOT strengthening the U.S.'s global competitiveness. The unions alone are still a boat anchor around their neck.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of co-mingled fixed costs that aren't that easily divisible. You think the bondholders wouldn't have contested this "ideal" resolution. This situation would really open up a legal argument of whether it actually fit within the constraints of BK law. Maybe I'm missing something, but for a guy who seems opposed to government intervention in business, you seem to have just advocated the government taking over the entire company and then divining its entire restructuring. Did you come up with this while on a trip to Europe - just kidding!
GM dies and the assets are picked up by new investors.
Just because the Gov't bailed out the Banks did not improve their balance sheets.
GM should not exist today.
Regards,
OW
Buying some initial stock in the "new" GM that was already restructured is not the same as buying the company. I'll venture that most of any Asian participants were investors, not Asian corporations looking to own the company. GM is just not all that attractive of a company to own. As for its Chinese operations, if GM gets into trouble again I think China may buy some of their local operations, assets and patents, but not the company.
I think we can all agree with that. :P
Maybe I'm just too much of a financial realist - what investors would be dumb enough to purchase it. even as modified? Heck, the hedge funds learned their lesson with Chrysler. The auto industry is about as attractive to new investors as the airline industry is - and that goes for both US and foreign investors. You may get a few stock buyers (but not major stakeholders) looking for a hopefully quick turn and stock sale profit, but not long term owners. I like cars, and airlines, as an interest, but today's investors just aren't very attracted to highly leveraged, capital intensive industries that generally create mediocre at best profits and ROI.
I don't know if GM failing would be enough to sink the economy, but I do have a feeling that it would take several years for all of the consequences to iron out. I'm not convinced that the other companies could pick up the slack if GM went under. Sure, someone would probably take over the assembly plants, but it would take time to convert them over to producing other cars. And I'm sure a lot of third party suppliers, dealerships, etc, would be affected.
Eventually, things would work out, and it would all just be a bad memory.
Slap a F-150 on a Silverado and I would not loose even a second of sleep.
You might not give it a second thought, but pickup trucks are one of the last segments where buyers are fiercely loyal. In parts of the country where they consider "Smokey and the Bandit" to be a documentary of the South, I'm sure such an action would be a hanging offense. Or at least a tar-and-feathering!
And indeed, truck loyalties there are held about as highly as churches.
The rich don't need the continuation of the Bush Tax Cuts.
The foreign companies do not need our markets.
Why do you automatically assume that GM's plants would have to stop making the current model? When you sell a property to some other individual, does the house on the property have to be ripped down? And the guy who cuts the grass and plows the driveway be replaced? No. Similarly GM could have been shutdown on a weekend, sold to the highest bidder(s), and the new owners take over the existing tooling and factories, with new labor agreements and no legacy costs, and start making the same autos at lower (much lower) cost, in short-order.
Didn't GM buy Saab a number of years ago when Saab was failing financially? Saab is just as big to Sweden as GM is to the U.S. Saab's were still made; Sweden did not collapse into chaos.
I'm afraid it isn't that simple under BK law, but let's assume it is. As I've previously stated, there are a number of reasons why the auto manufacturing business isn't that attractive these days, and a number of reasons why today's global automakers aren't looking to acquire other US manufacturers. Maybe under your scenario you dump the UAW, but the plants are still in UAW strong areas with sympathetic unions involved like the Teamsters, as well as possible community pressure on the new employees to unionize down the road. Not a great recipe for the new owner. Who do you end up getting as bidders, probably ill structured and under capitalized small businesses like sometimes end up in government contracts. I just don't see the strong and smart ones going for it. Even though you may have gotten the lines cheap and quick, there are the often expensive matters of updating and changing product down the road, EPA and OSHA, excessive legal and regulatory matters and frequent litigation in that industry, etc, etc. The independents long ago couldn't keep up with the large automakers and its even more difficult in today's business environment.
Didn't GM buy Saab a number of years ago when Saab was failing financially
Yeah, back when Ford was also making those failed global synergies by acquisition strategies. SAAB isn't exactly thriving, even in Europe. GM still keeping them is either stupidity or maybe Sweden is contributing. Notice that GM's foreign inspired products are all coming from Opel and Asia, not SAAB. Ford was smart enough to bail under its current leadership.
South Korea bailed out Kia.
"Sweden's Debt Office said this week that Saab and its counterparties have agreed in principle on demands set by the government for backing a deal to free up much-needed cash." (link) .
The Swedes previously gave credit guarantees and rescue loans for both Saab and Volvo. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7777395.stm">link)
Volkswagen tapped a state loan guarantee fund in 2008. (link).
BMW just "took" money from the US. (link), as did Ford, Toyota, Mitsubishi and Nissan.
Honda sought $5 billion from the Japanese government in '09. (link)
I don't know what makes GM special that they shouldn't get bailed out too.
As much as I hate the idea of bailing out GM, I concede that it was probably the right thing to do, particularly considering all of the other shenanigans that were going on.
To only fail again and their cars, were, what, world class?
I don't know what makes GM special that they shouldn't get bailed out too.
Nice message. Failure is not an issue as long as someone else looses.
And now you can be proud to support GM. Nice to teach our kids the GM story shines as a success in business.
The bailout is history but the USA is somehow not that special anymore if you look at it from that viewpoint.
Perhaps this is why GM is so special:
'Government motors' is still a lemon
Neither current management nor its government masters dare admit it, but the truth is obvious: The bailout's been a disaster for taxpayers and GM's pre-bailout stock- and bondholders -- and for GM itself.
Regards,
OW
Other governments bail out and subsidize their industrial base to keep jobs here. I don't think it's a bad idea.
I have a couple of problems with it.
A) It gave a very unfair advantage to Gov. Motors when it came to competing with Ford who managed to make it through the same difficult times as their cross-town rivals... without going bankrupt... Ford did it through improving products, something which has been recognized on both a media and a sales/profits front. GM which was a failing entity for 3 decades + (with consistantly poor products, too much overlap, too many brands and too much overhead) gets a 60 billion dollar loan to wipe their mistakes clean and start all over.
Thing is, the mistakes are still there! Rebadging is still rampant, GM still has way too many brands competing in the same segments and pricepoints, and the UAW still has a stranglehold on them which is even worse because they now own a stake in the damn company!
Meanwhile, GM did as little as possible to downsize (they got rid of 2 cars, the Kappa and the RWD SRX platform) while saying they were drastically downsizing (BS with a capital
__________________________
Seconly, look at where the product is coming from... Korea. The Snuze has been around for a couple of years now, first introduced in Korea. Now the Buick Lacrosse, which was plucked from China, the Aveo from Korea, the Camaro/Zeta from Australia, the Regal from Germany, etc, etc, etc. on top of the ones from Canada, Mexico...
So much for American... :sick: GM is as American in my eyes as Anheiser Busch. It's all name now.
If I run a business making something nobody wants, do I get bailed out too? Doubt it.
Neither should Government Motors. The screwed up, they deserved their fate. Good luck to em. :sick:
Gov. Motors took it so that "millions of employees" wouldn't lose their jobs and America would turn into a demilitarized zone if they went out of business.
ERGO, history WILL repeat itself.
Regards,
OW
Or are we at the Dirksen "billion here, billion there" level already?
That's my belief as well.
They don't have stable management or a strong leader.
They still have too many turd cars and trucks.
They didn't do any rebranding.
They still have the UAW.
3 types of hybrids...all 3 are duds. Ford and Toyota did one type, successfully.
Their reliability still suffers vs. the competition.
Ford and Hyundai look much more focused and determined.
I will say that the new Malibu and Cruze are much better looking, and the interiors have really improved.
Maybe I'm incorrect, but to my knowledge that loan to Ford was for future development of alternative energy vehicles under the Obama administration.
link title
The UAW seems to have a problem grasping the concept of "biting the hand that feeds you".
I think they want some of Mulally's money. I've read a few articles about the UAW chief claiming he's grossly overpaid. Maybe, but the fact remains if he didn't come on board, it very well could be that Ford would have a lot fewer UAW members. I'm 99.9% confident Ford would not be where it is today with out Mulally's leadership. If you look at the value he's created with Ford then he has been worth every penny and the employees should have bought some stock along the way.
It's obvious whats coming. The UAW will be thumping it's chest that they're sacrifices allowed Ford to be successful and since Ford can pay the CEO so much, they want their cut. The employees have obviously been through a lot. Ford is profitable now and they should be able to increase compensation in some manner. I'm sure the negotiations will be intense.
I think "crapping your nest" better fits it!
As we saw during the weeks of the Financial Crisis of 2008, BK law and other moral and ethical standards CAN BE BRUSHED ASIDE, by the wave of the pens of the Treasury, and the Federal Reserve, with the support of the Executive Branch, and the disengaged Congress.
Who do you end up getting as bidders, probably ill structured and under capitalized small businesses like sometimes end up in government contracts. I just don't see the strong and smart ones going for it.
GM's assets were a lot better than those "derivatives" and mortgages Lehman Bros. and Wells fargo and such. Other banks and brokerages were "coerced" into taking them.
Ten reasons below:
1) How many years have they turned a profit in the last 15 years?
2) How do they rank in CR?
3) Resale Value?
4) Quality and Value?
5) Fierce Competitive Product?
6) They went Bankrupt.
7) Chrysler proved one bailout just leads to yet another.
8) Chrysler's bail out worked OK? Take a look at the Neon produced in the 90's; world class? I think not.
9) GM being bailed out is with my tax money, the others didn't take from me personally.
10) What have you done for me lately? Oh yeah, lost billions in stock losses.
Absolutely correct. But GM isn't a U.S. only company. Now think about what that means. If you had a nasty voice in the back of your mind suddenly appear, welcome to the hard reality of vulture capitalism.
GM has Europe, Australia, and Asia that are profitable and are very attractive. Their IP and Patents are also worthwhile. A buyout would have meant that the company in question would have bought them out, stripped out the parts that they wanted, and liquidated the rest at cost. Sure, they would have lost 10-20 billion doing it, but they would have set themselves up for those markets and another decade or more. It wouldn't have taken long to make the money back.
It simply would have been a bloodbath as the main players would have been overseas and out of reach of the U.S. courts. There would have been several million more unemployed people as well (don't forget all of the U.S. suppliers who would have gone belly-up), which over two years would have added up to almost as much money as the government is going to lose if they divest themselves of their share at this point.
Net result is no actual difference in money spent, but by keeping the company alive, we still have people employed and have protected a part of our core infrastructure for possible future uses.
In a way, this is exactly like welfare in that the pundits and curmudgeons all go on and on about how bad it is, but the economic impact of those people as homeless masses is far far worse. Sure, in a perfect Pollyanna type world, there wouldn't be anyone on unemployment or welfare. But the result of not having it at all would turn our society into Mexico or worse (just visit Jaurez, some time if you dare to, that is). The staggering cost of having to deal with millions of people like that, from health care and law enforcement costs to the general burden to the nation and economy in general would exceed what we currently spend by several orders of magnitude in the long run.
In a way, this is exactly like welfare in that the pundits and curmudgeons all go on and on about how bad it is, but the economic impact of those people as homeless masses is far far worse. Sure, in a perfect Pollyanna type world, there wouldn't be anyone on unemployment or welfare. But the result of not having it at all would turn our society into Mexico or worse (just visit Jaurez, some time if you dare to, that is). The staggering cost of having to deal with millions of people like that, from health care and law enforcement costs to the general burden to the nation and economy in general would exceed what we currently spend by several orders of magnitude in the long run.
LOL, take any courses in college on using fear-mongering and scare-tactics to win approval and gain persuasive abilities? That seems to be the pro GM bailout camps tactic, just drill fear and scariness into the people.
OR we could of just used that bailout money to open a new McDonald's in every GM dealership, factory, and supply house across the US. I hear McDonald's sales ARE UP despite the depression. They are doing well and earning profit. GM is not. Which stock was preferable to own in the last 5 years, OLD GM, new GM, or McDonald's?
I think UAW workers while obviously incompetent at making vehicles run reliably, probably would have been capable of making a fine burger up to McD's standards.
The faces should be more realistic, sorta Bob lutzish looking...
Heck, with the revolving door for execs lately, maybe every one that gets shown said door gets his face on one of these!
That's not true. Germany and German companies rely on foreign markets to buy their products. They don't have enough domestic demand to support their manufacturing base.
If those German factories have to stop building BMW's and Mercedes Benz's etc, would they start building tanks instead?
In all seriousness we have many industries that depend on exports too. Sure we need a more balanced trade policy, but we need exports and imports.
I think UAW workers while obviously incompetent at making vehicles run reliably, probably would have been capable of making a fine burger up to McD's standards.
You can't possibly be serious. Oh, you probably are. Sigh.
Taking well paying technical jobs and replacing them with McJobs is exactly what got us into our current situation. And exactly what you can't do in an economic downturn, since you can't use minimum wage service type jobs to create wealth or economic capacity to grow out of said downturn. This is the textbook example of "shipping jobs overseas".
I am truly amazed that you actually used it as an example. because it's precisely what you don't ever want to do. Unless you are only concerned with how much money your portfolio is making.
And, yes, it is that scary. While most of the rest of the world is well aware of the harsh reality of today's world, most of the U.S. is living in a dream world and watching entirely too much TV and other drivel. It is scary. And it is coming unless we wake up and start to get serious about the reality that none of the other countries in the world are truly our friends. If they see an opportunity to exploit us, they will.
Absolutely correct. But GM isn't a U.S. only company. Now think about what that means. If you had a nasty voice in the back of your mind suddenly appear, welcome to the hard reality of vulture capitalism.
Welcome to the hard reality of the world today. Those days when we could have everything here in the U.S. are LONG GONE. And they are not coming back. We are not a walled garden. We don't have enough oil and I don't hear people complaining about those overseas providers sending their oil here to "compete" with local supplies. You don't like $4/gallon? Just see what would happen if we cut off foreign oil imports!
Most of our large companies are heavily dependent upon foreign countries for both parts/supplies AND as large markets for their sales. And we also won't be walling off trade only for our benefit, where we keep the trade we like and don't keep the trade that we don't like. That's a laugh. It's not going to change. Companies that don't want to be dinosaurs need to figure how to make it work. Really.
I'll agree with that. But as I've posted in another forum, US corporate tax policy might be the big job killer that nobody wants to address, which of course can't be cut without addressing our binge spending problem. And of course it's more important to talk about birth certificates and Planned Parenthood funding in public political venues than those things.
There's lots of long tails associated with letting jobs disappear and both Bush and Obama recognized that, at least when it came to the auto industry.
Probably some truth in that unfortunately, especially your comments about Congress, but you've still got the judicial side and I'm not sure that has totally run its course yet for GM or Lehman.
GM's assets were a lot better than those "derivatives" and mortgages Lehman Bros. and Wells fargo and such. Other banks and brokerages were "coerced" into taking them.
I'm not sure those banks were coerced. Remember, not all of Lehman, et. al. assets were lemons. There were also some very lucrative portions as well. Sometimes you take some garbage to get the winners. I don't really see the government able to force a company to do things that are just destructive to the company. There are usually trade-offs and then everyone spins it in the media.
Personally, I think the GM situation was pretty black and white - you either hold or fold. There really weren't viable alternatives in between. Both administrations chose to hold. Congressmen can throw out rhetoric because they can hide in their numbers, but presidents have to make decisions. In a massive recession the decision was made to hold. In a better economic situation I think they would have chosen to fold because the problems were far beyond what a guaranteed loan could resolve.
Well, if you were willing to pay $8.95 for a Big Mac perhaps!
Sadly, you have very accurately painted the pathetic Congress and political parties we have today.
From what I've seen through the years, toyota is a large purchasers of advertising, perhaps more than GM?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Oh come on, you don't think companies ABC and XYZ wouldn't of replaced GM's advertising? I'm sure Edmunds could of gotten more money from Honda, Toyota, Subaru, Audi, BMW and Mercedes, Mazda, Volvo , and others to make up for GM disappearing. Sure, Edmunds might of not received quite as much per advertisement from the others (sort of a fire sale losing that much so quickly), but it would have been replaced for the most part. Surely, some of it would have been replaced in short order.
I wasn't entirely serious, I was joking!
However, I am serious that based on the quality of work I've seen from the Big 3, I think they'd be better suited, more efficiently utilized, and overall just plain more efficient producing hamburgers than autos. They were terrible at making autos, they should try something they can do well!
The burgers part is the joke. They could make guns. They could make airplanes. They could make boats. They can't make autos sustainably!
You don't see any nations with the land mass, population, military needs, and geography even similar to the US being able to operate as shady and sometimes unsustainable (Ireland, at the very least) tax havens. So that might not be the answer.
Point is, shutting down a company like GM or Chrysler has a lot of consequences in every state, and who knows how the slack would be picked up, if at all.