GM News, New Models and Market Share

kernick

Whether each of your bullet's is the whole picture of both the positive and negative effects, doesn't really matter. You're still supporting the fact that each and every bailout weakens us as a country.

Each and every stimulus and bailout of the last few years has failed, because the net benefit has been negative. Thus that's the reason you see Bush, Obama, and Bernanke having to institute one-after-another-after-another stimulus or bailout. And you'll see each has a short-term effect; but just like the housing market, it still needs to correct. They are trying to fix an economy built on bubbles, by blowing more bubbles!

The only real positive in the economy today is the stock market. It is creating some wealth and good feeling such that people might go look at a GM product. But if you look at how fast that's increased in the last year, and then understand why, you realize the stock market is a bubble. When that collapses in the next year, everything is going to be hurting agian! Is the New GM ready for the next financial system collapse and double-dip recession?

hoosiergrandad

Maybe we need to set some national criteria of when a business becomes too-big-to-fail. Any company that is too-big-to-fail should be declared Too-Big-To-Exist, and have to be broken-up into smaller companies.

Agree in principle, but I don't think our anti-trust laws reach beyond our borders. Makes it a tougher call.

kernick

Many mergers need to be approved by the SEC and other U.S. agencies. So they never get approved. That way you would never have had all the separate car companies that originally created GM, combine in the first place. Do the same thing with banks and brokerage firms. Make the criteria of having a monopoly or putting the economy at risk - a very low bar.

Give the current Too-Large enterprise a few years to voluntarily and gradually break-up, and then if they haven't, they will be declared a Monopoly, and the courts will break them up.

And on top of that we could hope that Congress decrees lobbying as illegal influencing, and make the penalty 20 years on a chain-gang.

The U.S. government really has not addressed the root-cause of the need for these bailouts to the banks or the auto industry.

imidazol97

>The only real positive in the economy today is the stock market. It is creating some wealth and good feeling ..... But if you look at how fast that's increased in the last year, and then understand why, you realize the stock market is a bubble. When that collapses in the next year...

Exactly. The stock market ups and downs increase the wealth of the money-changers in the big banks and companies who got us into the 2008 meltdown with all their paper trading of made up papers trading in supposed values of "something" behind them. The government bailed them out, whether they needed it or not, and now we have the bigger banks.

imidazol97

>And I'd say the same about GM - should have been broken up if we had to bail them out. ANY company that is important to get a government bailout - BAIL AND BREAK UP. My new platform when I run for prez.

Candidate Long:
GM was broken up. The ineffective parts were split off as the Old GM and the better operating parts became the New GM. The Old parts are still being liquidated: to wit, the plant in Moraine Ohio was sold to a broker who tries to start new businesses in old plants by breaking them into smaller parts.

GM is no longer Pontiac, Saturn, (Oldsmobile), Hummer, Saab, and probably another one I don't recall right now. They were broken apart from the downsized GM.

I realize you may be thinking of multiple parts being left to compete with each other. But in GM's case, the excessive parts led to too much competition within the company causing higher costs for the world in 1990s and 2000s. In the 1960s there were fewer competing auto companies and having small parts within GM (and F and C) was competition.

dave8697

GM goes down in history as the biggest failure in automotive history

I don't know why but I never "that" thought as I drive around in my great GM vehicles that deliver great value, performance, and reliability. What I do think about is the 'for lease' signs at so many strip malls. The empty parking lots at furniture stores. The flattened land where auto factories once stood.

berri

I think there is sort of an irony with GM. The very bigness and vertical integration that made them so successful and powerful into the 70's seemed to end up turning around and biting them. When I was a kid years ago, while GM models might share frame and body underpinnings, there were real suspension and drive train differences between brands. This was complemented by correspondingly different interiors. A Pontiac and a Buick were different cars to the consumer. I think a few things then happened. First, the decision to come out with the Caprice (and Ford LTD) started eating into higher margin LeSabre and 88 products - you could get pretty much the same creature comforts in a lower priced car. Also, the proliferation of size markets complicated things. Instead of just full sized cars and trucks, now you had sizable entries in compacts and intermediates as well. I believe this started spreading the ranks thin and leading to overhead creep. In order to offset this negative cost trend, the finance people started pushing for more shared components. Perhaps the most notable was the "Chevymobiles" brought on by the tremendous sales success of the mid seventies Olds Cutlass. The differences between GM models began to blur further in the consumers perception. Next, cheap, but decent Japanese cars began gaining popularity. This was a much bigger challenge than the VW Beetle. Unfortunately, Detroit responded to this price and product pressure by cheapening their product with the resulting declining quality. That action allowed the Japanese to expand their car lines. However, instead of taking on the infrastructure of new car lines and divisions, they chose to start with base and much more deluxe versions of the base (e.g. Camry, then LE, then XLE). Detroit then ran to Washington demanding protection from those imports and the under valued Yen (sounds a bit like China today, doesn't it?). But that effort backfired because the yen pressure from the US encouraged them to set up US transplants which also allowed them to further ramp up volume. As Americans became more and more comfortable with the Japanese products, they then added new luxury vehicles like Lexus. The acceptance of these new offerings probably also indirectly increased sales and market share of other imports like MB and BMW. All of these changes and increased products made the old multiple lines and divisions at GM obsolete, bigness alone was no longer necessarily an advantage - but they didn't seem to get it right away. They added Saturn in response to Japanese cars and Hummer in response to the SUV craze instead of streamlining their operations and marketing approach. I feel that bigness always leads to the danger of arrogance and complacency. I think Toyota recently suffered from this plague as well.

fintail

Boeing is a bizarro world unto itself. You did get some kind of severance pay or other benefit though, right?

Can't figure out who to support with the Lazy B. A lot of the workers can be awfully shrill, ungrateful, and greedy...but the execs can redefine ineptitude, and I have to wonder how long the company would survive without defense work (sounds like subsidization to me). Maybe a parallel to GM in some ways.

Funny how those high tax socialist hellholes that our free marketeers love to loathe are pretty much having their cake and eating it too, nowadays.

fho2008

Saturn was a good idea....but in GMs melting pot it became just another brand. Leave it to GM to ruin a good thing.

motorcity6

The USA will look more like Canada with large banks only and the smaller banks will be closed down with assets going to larger banks..The selloff of the assets held by the smaller banks are being financed by us and the large bank loses nothing in the liquidation process..in fact they prosper with federal handouts..Canadian banks like to finance cars and short term home mortgages..5 yr deals..

The small banks in Fla are quickily becoming history..

Not a pretty picture for the folks who must earn a living by working...The dollar is crumbling as we all know, look at oil, gold, and commodities.. I think QE2 ends soon, so the stock market should pan again, and I am sure that investors will be clamoring for QE3, the smoke and mirror game of the Feds..Print, Print....Starting Monday I will be on the "Short Side" of the market, double-down..

As a manufacturer's rep for 12 yrs, one of my sources was a Canadian mfgr of auto parts whereas the product was sold to the auto folks for US dollars and the conversion to the Canadian $$ was a windfall..ain't that way now..Times are changing.....

andres3

5. The airlines were bailed out because they too took a hard hit from rising fuel prices.

Not Southwest, unlike dumb incompetent companies like GM, Southwest prepared for the future of high fuel prices by buying their fuel rates in advance and paying it forward for several years.

You can make excuses all you want, the the winners win and the losers lose, and only with bailouts do the losers win and winners lose.

tlong

If you make it to 62, you will get soc sec. which is part of the taxes you have paid in. And it won't be a loan. You can keep it all. And your medicare benefit after 65 is not a loan either.

- In reality SS is a PROMISE to give you something based upon what you paid in. What you paid in was SPENT on government programs (including SS) long ago
- You can't keep it all, as if your retirement income is too high, SS it taxed so the government gets a bunch of it back

tlong

Let me make a few corrections:

GM had $54 billion sitting in cash in 2006. In 2008 they lost $39 billion. So 1. They did have money put away. 2. They lost almost all of the $72 Billion in just a 2 year period due to an unsustainable business model. 3. They other companies would have got bailout money if it meant saving a lot of jobs. 4. GM took an extra hard hit because fuel more than doubled in price in a very short time and they were foolishly dependent upon gas guzzling vehicles, feeling that hybrids and small cars were not worth the trouble. 5. The airlines were not bailed out because they too took a hard hit from rising fuel prices. 6. GE and many other companies got bailout money. 7. GM is represented by 140 million vehicles out on the road, even though this is not relevant to the argument at all. 8. Almost all of the $72 billion isn losses were paid as excess wages and purchase costs for people including the extremely expensive and uncompetitive UAW and things. Those supplying people and entities paid taxes on that $72 billion. 9. Just those taxes alone are way more than the remaining GM loan balance. 10. Chrysler got a bailout and is now foreign owned. 11. Ford could of had a bailout if they wanted, but didn't need it due to superior management. and 12. Ford indirectly did get a bailout. Their suppliers were kept healthier and the interest rates they borrowed privately at have had downward pressure due to govermnent stimulus. Of course this is true for all companies, so it really isn't fair to single out Ford for this

tlong

Will you buy from companies that have been aided by various federal governments, just not with your money?

My first preference is to buy from excellently run companies. That's not always perfectly possible, but it is a major consideration. Given that my friend in college had a rusting Vega after 2 years, my SIL had a disastrous Citation, the Cavalier and Cobalt were junky, and I have been bombarded with advertising telling me to buy the brand Chevy because it is like motherhood and apple pie -- that all puts GM in a very special category.

circlew

Given that my friend in college had a rusting Vega after 2 years, my SIL had a disastrous Citation, the Cavalier and Cobalt were junky, and I have been bombarded with advertising telling me to buy the brand Chevy because it is like motherhood and apple pie -- that all puts GM in a very special category.

That is correct. Chevy "Runs Deep"





Regards,
OW

fintail

I can't argue with that. But for the product. I too have no plans to buy a new GM product - simply because there aren't any I want (that I can afford), and I have no plans to buy a new anything anyway. And I am happy to be young enough to have no new GM horror stories in my memory. The Ciera and S-10 Blazer that were in the family weren't remarkably bad, the former was actually a nice enough car. The latter wasn't the 4-Runner I wanted though.

I just can't see the bailout as being a logical negative - as there aren't really any companies who have been 100% self-reliant.

tlong

I just can't see the bailout as being a logical negative - as there aren't really any companies who have been 100% self-reliant.

Well, most people have at least gone over the speed limit a few times, which is breaking the law. As is murder. But the magnitude is quite different.

GM's magnitude was large. And yes, I know the bank bailouts were HUGE. Which is why I moved my accounts from one of them. It's the 80/20 rule. :mad:

fintail

It's not the banks that get me in this regard - but most carmakers have had either bailouts or consistent federal aid/special loans/etc from the places where they reside. I'm not seeing much real moral high ground in the industry.

tlong

I'm not seeing much real moral high ground in the industry.

...least of all from GM.

iluvmysephia1

Boeing is a bizarro world unto itself. You did get some kind of severance pay or other benefit though, right?

To work for Boeing one must be prepared to kiss utmost heiny to survive. At Boeing it doesn't matter how much work you do, or how well you do your work, it's who you know or who you sleep with. The place is a joke.

Yep, I got a small severance package and my wife and I spent it while I went back to college to retrain on the Trade Act. And I do get a Boeing pension-I'm 100% fully vested-so that's good. There was just no smart reason to lay off 90% of our hard-working group of 767 Tubing P.I. people. Idiots and morons and thugs and thieves.

I hate that place almost as much as I hate the dorks that threw Super Bowl 40 to the Pittsburgh Stealers. That was the Seattle Seahawks football game and the game was stolen and literally handed to the Stealers.

Oh well...better than having your head blown off over in Afghanistan, right?

lemko

Likewise! I also see the vast urban decay and ghettoization of my city along with all the crime and social ills that go with it when industry left.

kernick

No one here wants to see more manufacturing or jobs moved overseas. What we do want is new owners, management, and workers (if need be), when a company fails. I work in a manufacturing company, and I understand that a country needs to produce goods to prosper.

But that does not mean that a company can become Too-Big-to-Fail , such that it can act irresponsibly of foolishly knowing in the end that they get bailed out. That does not work with your teen either. If your teen acts irresponsibly and blows his college fund $ on video games, restaurants, tattoos, cigarettes ... because he knows you'll just give him more $, how is that good?

The government should identify any compny that is too-big-to-fail, now! These organizations should then be forced to divest or breakup. OR if you think that is too heavy-handed, then an alternative would be for each too-big-to-fail organization to have to contribute to a Contingeny Bailout Fund that the U.S. government would hold in Trust. This fund would collect several billion $'s each year from each of these firms, and save this money if future bailouts are needed. Basically they would need to buy insurance against their own failure, like homeowners who have to buy PMI.

circlew

Jesse Toprak, vice president for industry trends and insight at TrueCar.com, said Chrysler still needed to make its vehicle lineup more appealing, particularly in the small-car segments that have become more popular amid rising gas prices.

“The outstanding issue for them is their continued reliance on S.U.V.’s and trucks,” Mr. Toprak said. “They’re on the road to recovery, but there’s much more to be done to really claim that Chrysler is back on their feet and healthy.”

Pickups and other light trucks accounted for 78 percent of Chrysler’s first-quarter sales in the United States compared with about 60 percent for General Motors and the Ford Motor Company.

Guess which sales will slow as gas prices hit $5.00/gal.

Same old GM.

Regards,
OW

plekto

Trust me on this. If the Government sells its shares, it will certainly send GM a bill for the difference. Either that, or demand they pay it off with free government cars or something for the next 20 years.

The Government doesn't ever just forget money you borrowed from it.

lemko

What's Chrysler got to do with GM? It said 60% for both GM and Ford, so why aren't you dissin' Ford as well?

lemko

The Government doesn't ever just forget money you borrowed from it.

That's only if you were a college student. If you're some big bank or corporation, they'll let you slide.

circlew

What's Chrysler got to do with GM? It said 60% for both GM and Ford, so why aren't you dissin' Ford as well?

Ford is in the same camp as both C and GM regarding trucks, but they didn't fail and get bailed out.

That's why. :mad:

Ford, which surpassed General Motors Co. (GM) in sales in March for the second time in 13 years, won’t resort to heavy discounts to reverse its share losses, Mulally said. GM increased sales incentives 11 percent in the first quarter, while Ford reduced them 9.1 percent, according to Autodata.

“The most important thing about our plan is profitable growth,” Mulally said. “We will always be very disciplined about our production and our pricing and have the pricing reflect the real demand and inherent value of the product.”

Ford’s pretax profit may rise to $2.24 billion in the first quarter, from $2.14 billion last year, according to the average of five analysts’ estimates. Revenue may fall to $30.8 billion, the average of eight analysts’ estimates, from $31.6 billion last year.
Ford Borrowing

Ford avoided the government bailouts and bankruptcies that befell the predecessors of GM and Chrysler Group LLC in 2009. Ford borrowed $23 billion in late 2006, after Mulally arrived from Boeing Co. and before credit markets froze. The automaker put up all major assets as collateral, including the Ford logo, and used the funds to develop the more fuel-efficient lineup.

“I’m betting with Ford management, that they’ve made the right calls for the long term and have good products,” Bradshaw said. “These higher prices for oil may be here forever and we’re just going to have to deal with it.”


Regards,
OW

berri

Trust me on this. If the Government sells its shares, it will certainly send GM a bill for the difference

Afraid not, this is equity, not debt. If the government sells shares at a loss, just like you and me they have to eat it. Except you and I will eat a bit of it too since it comes out of our taxes. The gov is dumping early because of politics and this is why gov and business don't always mix well.

kernick

And I believe Ford's new F-150 is going to generally have better mpg than GM or Dodge's PU's. The 2012 F-150's are mainly going to be V-6's with the power of the former V-8's.

So in the personal PU truck market, where HD isn't usually required, higher gas prices will push more business Ford's way. GM better get Direct Injection engines in their trucks soon!

rayainsw

http://www.cnbc.com/id/42877013

detail:

http://media.gm.com/content/dam/Media/gmcom/investor/2011/9352001AprDel.pdf

andres3

I think Obama will sell of GM in May ASAP for sure now. The goodwill he gets from getting Osama Bin Laden will offset some of the many billions he's lost in gambling on GM.

For me though, I'd rather have the billions and billions back.

berri

I think now that the gov said they'll sell out this summer, its likely sooner than later too, don't know about May specifically - but I hear what you're saying.

I believe we disagreed on the purchase decision. I wasn't as upset vice the bank bailouts and the employment concerns of a liquidation in an economic environment close to deflation and possible conversion from serious recession to depression. Be that as it may, we may agree more on the sale of the equity. I think it is incumbent on the gov to sell out their position over time in a rational business manner to maximize return to the tax payer. Unless you think GM stock will continue to plummet, that means doing it over a multiple year basis. GM new product has improved, albeit perhaps not yet to some of the better Asian models. IMHO they have a better cost structure and better financial leverage position than Ford thanks to the BK, and they are not in the UAW gun sights like Ford. To me, that means as the economy improves their stock should increase in value faster than Ford from this point in time. By selling in the spring or summer, unless the economy does an unanticipated nosedive, the gov is giving up a lot of potential upside because of politics which I don't think is right by the taxpayer.

I also think their political calculation may be off. I think people are either upset or not about the bailout. I don't think whether they sell it quickly this summer is going to make much difference to the various constituents opinion on the matter. However, they may be one more issue playing in this decision. I saw in the WSJ the other day that GM is back to lobbying and has spent about double what Ford has in Washington on it. I'm thinking GM management wants the gov out of it, not only to do away with the "Government Motors" nickname, but to allow them to increase executive compensation.

xlu

Surprise... It's the Detroit 3!

Who said that the Detroit 3 were not in the car business; they did not know how to make small cars?

Who said that Toyota was positioned to gain the most from the $4 gas price?

It's a new world now; get used with it. Great job, America!

circlew

It's a new world now; get used with it.

Yep!

GM said its better lineup of small cars helped its performance in April. Sales of the compact Cruze increased 83% compared with the Cobalt, its predecessor

Korean automaker Hyundai, which offers three models that get 40 m.p.g. on the highway and was unaffected by the earthquake in Japan, saw its sales jump 40.3% in April.

Korean automakers Hyundai and Kia had a combined market share of 9.4% in April, just shy of Honda's 10.8% and Chrysler's 10.1% share and ahead of Nissan's 6.2%

Cruze and Malibu did great because they are better cars than what Chevy offered for 40 years. Just under them were the Sonata and Elantra, the cars that will make sure the D3 keep awake at night.

It's nice to see what we have all been saying for years...make good products and they will sell. Well, well, well, isn't it about time?

When Toyota and Honda get back up to speed this summer, we'll see if this trend holds.

Regards,
OW

lemko

Heck, the Cruze is the first smaller car made by any non-luxury maker I'd seriously would consider - ever. Thing is, it is still cheaper to not have a car payment with my paid-for Grand Marquis and deal with the psychopathic fuel prices than have payments on even the most fuel-efficient vehicle and deal with the insane gasoline costs.

anythngbutgm

link title

Must be those long "waiting lists" for the Chevy, everybody is still waiting for theirs?

.... while 576 of them go unsold across the Country...

link title

lemko

Heck, I have yet to see EITHER of them!

fezo

In that respect you and I are in the same boat. I'd just as soon have a more efficient car instead of my Ody but very soon the Ody is apid for and a payment would cover an awful lot of gas. In order to break even a small car would have to create gasoline rather than consume it.

xlu

Here's the list of the luxury car sales in April; Lexus is No. 4; Buick is No. 3 and rising fast.

Rank Company Apr 2011 volume % change
1 Mercedes-Benz 19,157 5%
2 BMW 18,801 9%
3 Buick 18,413 51%
4 Lexus 17,576 -4%
5 Cadillac 13,127 16%
6 Acura 11,604 8%
7 Lincoln 7,236 -1%
8 Infiniti 6,761 -6%
9 Volvo 6,404 41%
10 Porsche 3,172 82%
11 Land Rover 2,982 9%
12 Jaguar 1,249 39%
13 Saab 696 224%
14 Maserati 229 23%
15 Bentley 119 -6%

kernick

Whoever made that list obviously has a very wide definition of what "luxury" is! don't you think? There's brands there that have an average retail of $35K with brands that are on average $70K? (Mercedes) and $175K? (Bentley).

I wouldn't consider Buick, Acura, Lincoln, Volvo, or Saab to be luxury brands either due to content or prestige.

A little screwy comparision if you ask me. Oh, is that global or just U.S.? Sales to dealers or retail sales?

fezo

Yeah, I'd put them in kind of a pre-luxury category - a bit nicer than some but short of luxury.

We'll be back in the Hyundai as a luxury item mess again!

anythngbutgm

In Sweeping Action, GM Recalls 154000 Chevrolet Snuze Models

but now the automaker has recalled all of them for a steering issue – and it has added all automatic transmission-equipped Snuzes to the list for a separate issue.

Oops, guess it's worse than they thought.

anythngbutgm

GM’s truck inventory currently stands at 111 days of surprise, or a whopping 275,000 trucks sitting on lots.

lemko

Never heard of a "Snuze." Which model is this?

mz6greyghost

Oops, guess it's worse than they thought.

Oops, guess you don't bother to read anything you post.

If you did bother to read, you would've seen that the new recall is looking at the steering shaft itself to make sure it was installed correctly. It's quite different from the wheel coming off the column.

It's funny, but there was only ONE documented case of the steering wheel coming off, as well as ONE case of the steering shaft. To me, it sounds like GM is actually being proactive and taking the time (and expense) to double-check the cars. IMO it's better than a company denying there was a problem, then lying to both their customers and the government about possible issues with their cars. *cough*Toyota*cough*

lemko

Duh! Do you think $4+ for gasoline might have something to do with it? I'm sure Toyota, Ford, etc. have a huge inventory of trucks and SUVs in light of psychopathic fuel prices. Only a guy who needs a new truck for business would be buying a truck unless he is ferociously wealthy or a masochist in this environment.

imidazol97

>it sounds like GM is actually being proactive and taking the time (and expense) to double-check the cars. IMO it's better than a company denying there was a problem, then lying to both their customers and the government about possible issues with their cars. *cough*Toyota*cough*

Amen.

Isn't toy having their own additional recalls lately? They must not have fooled the NHSTA with twisted data in reports and friends in the staff at NHSTA as was done from 2002, approximately!!!

anythngbutgm

Ford F-series outsold Chevy and GMC combined... With over 10k units to spare. And the Tundra gained sales YoY.

They also have a lot time of about 64 days. The truth is the ecoboost engines have put Ford comfortably in the lead, engine wise until the next round of GMT's (3 years?).

mz6greyghost

They also have a lot time of about 64 days. The truth is the ecoboost engines have put Ford comfortably in the lead...

True. Ford just released that 50 percent of F-150s sold in April were V6s (either the 3.7L or the 3.5L EcoBoost), and the EB was 75% of those models.

Ford has a gem with the EB V6. Not only does it offer V8 power and torque, but the fuel economy is outstanding for what it's capable of.

And it's capable of a LOT. Check out the latest episode of "Test Drive" on Speed channel, where they REALLY work out the EB V6, and see for yourself.

The GM pick-ups are good trucks in their own right, but until they get more fuel-efficient, they're going to continue to lose ground in this segment.

anythngbutgm

Oops, guess you don't bother to read anything you post.

If you did bother to read, you would've seen that the new recall is looking at the steering shaft itself to make sure it was installed correctly. It's quite different from the wheel coming off the column.

I'm sorry but huh? I read it just fine. Yes, I do think it's worse than they thought, obviously there is some serious possible issues related to Snuze steering systems, things that goes beyond just the wheel falling off.

Not surprising, Government Motors vehicles have a history of ISS problems, from their trucks to their fullsize cars and now their latest and greatest compact. Not months, not a year...

Years.

On a car that has been on the global market for 2 years. To "get the bugs out" :sick: