In over forty years of actively looking at new Chevrolets, I cannot recall a single one that was built "in Detroit", so I'd say this latest news is nothing really new at all. Most all Big Three factories were always outside of Detroit.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
>So Detroit has seen little benefit from the auto industry's return to profitability.
The glass half empty dredge that is the topic for the forum overlooks that Detroit is a small city surrounded by a very large number of suburbs. E.g., Hamtramck and Lake Orion where auto industry does make a difference. E.g., visiting our friends in Canton I drive past Yazaki North America at Haggerty and Warren Roads.
I cannot recall a single one that was built "in Detroit", so I'd say this latest news is nothing really new at all. Most all Big Three factories were always outside of Detroit.
There is a lot more to producing cars than the factories. Design, engineering, accounting, IT, HR, and marketing etc. A lot of that goes on in Detroit.
I believe there are around 5,000 employees at GM HQ alone. Then add Ford and Chrysler, and all of the suppier/vendors located in the area
Also, I'd guess when they say Detroit, they don't mean within the city limits, but also the surrounding area.
The tone of Kernick's post (which I should've included in mine) was that the rebound in the auto industry hasn't helped Detroit and specifically mentioned "only Chrysler operates one assembly plant in the city limits". I was just responding that that was far from something new.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
The tone of Kernick's post (which I should've included in mine) was that the rebound in the auto industry hasn't helped Detroit and specifically mentioned "only Chrysler operates one assembly plant in the city limits". I was just responding that that was far from something new.
I forgot to italicize my post, but those words were a quote from that CNN article; not my words. I think the author was referring strictly to the city limits. The article's focus was on the plight of Detroit (proper) which is so often used interchangeably with the U.S. D3. Maybe the best link between the article and the general health of the D3, is that - the recent upswing for the auto industry hasn't been large enough for the offices and plants in and around Detroit, to hire enough people to fill in the vacant housing in Detroit, to work in the neighboring auto and auto-supplier plants.
I can't figure out your point. You show a graph that shows the effect of recession, high gas prices, and 'a few other things' on GM's market share. They fell from #1 to #1 as far as I still know. Correct me if they are not still #1. Let me know who is so I can check out their warranty.
No problem. I KNOW they are #1 in sales. Additionally, they are not #1 for the best cars in virtually EVERY category.
BTW, the market share loss started a few decades back. Did that "Recession" ever end for GM?? HA!
I guess every recession and the FACT that gas prices will remain high and those few other things will ensure that GM fails yet again? I assume those 'things' are insignificant to a successful automotive manufacturer.
You show a graph that shows the effect of recession, high gas prices, and 'a few other things' on GM's market share
Actually market share removes overall sales fluctuations from the equation, and compares GM to competitors.
Gas prices will have an effect, but I don't think they're high right now. Oil is hovering around $100 a barrel, down from a high of $145. Believe it or not, oil is still cheap. It's very likely to go back up once the economy starts to recover in earnest.
We've gotten used to $3.50 gas. Don't be surprised to see $4 and maybe even $5 when the economy takes off. This would negatively impact pickups, big time.
Hopefully the economy does take off, but I'm not going to hold my breath. I think we've gone over all the issues that can blowup this year.
But yes gasoline is not going back to $2/gal. All the risk is for oil and thus gasoline to increase. With the data circlew posted showing the reliance of the D3 on LT's, this is a high risk for the D3.
I'm thinking about my transportation options - everything from a Dodge Grand Caravan, to a sports car, to a BMW maxi-scooter. Probably to hedge my bets, I'd be best to go with something fuel efficient, and a BMW scooter just might fit the bill, for my 5 mile commute, and fun on the weekends. I'll keep my AWD cars for the inclement weather.
German automaker BMW is one of the most diverse brands in the industry, having branched itself out past its cars division into other ventures, particularly motorcycles.
At the company’s recent Motorrad Innovation Day 2011, the German brand unveiled their latest two-wheeled concept machine, the electric drive E-Scooter.
Featuring a design that lends itself to the lack of a main frame, the E-Scooter comes with an aluminum battery casing that is connected to the steering head support, the rear frame, and the left-hand mounted single swing arm, which is directly hinged to a horizontally installed shock absorber. The charging device of the E-Scooter comes with a charge cable that allows the bike’s battery to be recharged in a painless manner - any household power socket will suffice.
The electric drivetrain of the E-Scooter allows it to reduce its range by somewhere around 10 - 20 percent depending on the bike’s profile.
The E-Scooter’s performance numbers have yet to be announced, but BMW is pegging the bike to produce an output that ’s right around the range of maxi scooters that are currently powered by a 600-cc combustion engine with a driving range of well over 60 miles.
For a scooter that boasts of an electric drivetrain, that’s a mighty impressive number given that it compares favorably to its fuel counterparts.
If the economy does take off, $5 gas would bring it back down again - people are living on smaller margins than they have for some time, and such an event would have consequences. But the sacrifice is worth it so wealth can consolidate more...oops, class warfare, we can't have that :shades:
The competition has gained in many ways because of taxpayer funded gifts...why can't GM benefit from the same strategies? If we're going to dumb down to the globalized level, we either all have to play the same games, or not all be allowed in one playground.
GM needs to receive more government aid of various types that match the level of support given to foreign companies through the decades as they produced cars to sell into the US. With more subsidy, GM could develop a lower cost hybrid to sell as did Toyota, e.g. With government subsidy and freedom to compete without constraints, GM can lower the price of the Volt to sell at a loss until the market is established. Then when they are selling enough units to be self-sustaining, support could go to develop other types of vehicles.
We need to support our US companies to the same level Asian companies have received from their governments.
Well then if you want to support GM with subsidies, I guess we should be fair and support the textile, electronic manufacturers, and just about every other industrial business that was hurt during the last 40 years also. Of course since we're borrowing the money now from China and Japan who are our 2 biggest owners of debt, we'll just have to ask them to borrow more. Right?
That seems a little like the PIGS, who decided to borrow $ to artificially create jobs in their countries, promise pensions to those employees, and who now find themselves having to increase their borrowing and debt beyond what anyone is really willing to lend them.
Consider this all you Keynesian types. If the way out of a slow economy, and the way to employ more people is to simply have the government spend more, becuase for every $1 spent there is more money made, then why doesn't the Fed and Treasury just pump $20T into GM and the economy and we'll all be employed working 2 jobs, and be wealthy beyond belief?
Because bailouts and deficit spending do NOT work when the cause of the economic problems is debt itself. GM and its jobs have been saved at a cost approaching or beyond $100B. It's still inefficient with no breakthru ideas or reinvention of how to make and market autos. It still relies on large, low mpg vehicles for most of its sales. Similarly banks, AIG, Fannie Mae, and other bailouts have cost over a trillion $'s, if you add in all the stimuli that the government had to make to the general populace, because of the consequences of their actions. We have 9% unemployment + many discouraged workers, after these bailouts. The end result is we've stabilized the economy for a couple of years at great expense.
We are broke! We are quickly approaching the time where we can't just get another credit card to pay the other credit cards. We already borrowed from all the neighbors, and they're not going to keep making us loans forever, as we keep going deeper and deeper into debt. Spending more has NOT spurred our income. It has put us deeper into debt. Those are the facts! Look at any of the last 4-5 years whether Bush or Obama, Dem. or Rep. Congress, the more they've spent and bailed out the deeper our debt has gone.
I don't consider "government the solution; they're the problem". After writing the rules-of-the-game, government should be nothing more than a referee, and stop screwing up the game, playing favorites for their "buddies, and enriching themselves.
GM can lower the price of the Volt to sell at a loss until the market is established.
Let's just make the $7,500 tax credit, an instant $30K rebate? :P How did giving Solyndra and other solar panel companies a billion $'s establish a market? Did that work? Have any of the incentives handed out to solar and wind companies for decades ever work? No!
Let's just use Keynesian economics again. Give every American $20K to buy a new GM vehicle! How's that for a stimulus! Sales will boom at GM, they can hire many millions of people, all the factories would be full, and workers would be building new factories. We can afford to give everyone $20K right, because the economists tell us that for every $1 spent, $2 will come back in taxes because of all the economic activity. A few people have echoed that here in the past. They believe the story that for every $ spent on GM, that $2 or $3 were created and went back to the taxpayer. If that worked why would the government ever let anyone fail or declare bankruptcy? Just spend more and you'll get more back! Well our deficits and debt show that doesn't work. It's a story, a lie, and a failed theory. It's a lie to get the common person to accept the transfer of their $ to the wealthy and powerful who will benefit from the bailouts. It's a lie to the gullible; Snake-Oil Salesmen on a grand scale!
I know some of you want to believe our leaders are working for the common person, and are competent, and have competent advisors. Look around you at your neighborhoods, local economies, friends and families ... and see what $10T of debt increase in the last decade (or so) has bought.
Government spending, bailouts, growth, and policies in general have failed.
No single GM model is #1, but GM likely did lead global auto sales.
But no one here can explain why that is necessarily good. Let me be Economics teacher here and ask: was it GM #1 in global auto sales when they went bankrupt? If so, does it really matter if you're #1 in global auto sales?
2nd Economics/Finance question: What does matter. I'll answer that: Profits and Cash Flow.
How does Q2 relate to my first question. If you're not making a profit on each auto on average, then all you're doing by sbeing #1 in sales is losing money quicker! Eventually bankruptcy!
What will sink faster - a rowboat or an ocean liner? The answer: whichever has the bigger hole!
Actually market share removes overall sales fluctuations from the equation, and compares GM to competitors.
actually...NO if a manufacturer sells V8 powered trucks in the millions and 4 cyl cars in the hundreds of thousands, they would be expected to be hit harder by the gas price spike, compared to a company for which V8 trucks is a small percent of overall sales.
But no one here can explain why that is necessarily good. Let me be Economics teacher here and ask: was it GM #1 in global auto sales when they went bankrupt? If so, does it really matter if you're #1 in global auto sales?
I'll help you get back on track. My comments were in response to the discussions centered around how GM's warranty isn't good enough for several posters here. I pointed out that USA wide, the buyers are getting into a new GM more often than any other brand. So I don't see their point about the GM warranty not measuring up. It measures up in generating sales. Why pay for more of the customer's wishes like 2 yrs maintenance, etc, when you are already no. 1 in sales?
GM's lost market share is like the dinosaurs...stop waiting for it to come back. They sit at 20% today. Ahead of every other manufacturer, not that they care to bring 333,000 union assemblers back into their workforce at $75 an hour. Re-baseline them at the 19% market share OW thinks they are at when they began getting a better balance between LT and small cars, built by a workforce getting paid more rational wages for assembly work, and tell me why you think a big drop is coming. If you think that. 691,000 Cruzes? Not bad.
So I don't see their point about the GM warranty not measuring up. It measures up in generating sales.
So a better warranty trumps more desirable product? You'd think if GM's warranty was such a huge hit, it would have had more of an effect when it was introduced back in 2007. From what I recall, GM's market share didn't start improving until they actually started building cars people desired.
I'm not singling out GM's warranty. I don't place a warranty very high on my want list when buying a vehicle, it's the last thing I consider.
I buy what I want, if I feel I need a better warranty I'll just pay for the manufacturers extended warranty. I'm not going to buy one vehicle over another based on a limited warranty. Now if I like two vehicles the same, that might be different, but I've never had that happen.
was it GM #1 in global auto sales when they went bankrupt? If so, does it really matter if you're #1 in global auto sales?
No; GM lost the No. 1 position first then went bankrupt. It re-emerged from the bankruptcy and reclaimed the No. 1 position remarkably quick. Of course it matters to be No. 1, in NBA, in country's GDP ranking, in auto market too.
2nd Economics/Finance question: What does matter. I'll answer that: Profits and Cash Flow.
GM needs to receive more government aid of various types that match the level of support given to foreign companies through the decades as they produced cars to sell into the US. With more subsidy, GM could develop a lower cost hybrid to sell as did Toyota, e.g. With government subsidy and freedom to compete without constraints, GM can lower the price of the Volt to sell at a loss until the market is established. Then when they are selling enough units to be self-sustaining, support could go to develop other types of vehicles.
I think we should provide enough subsidy such that the entire company of GM can be put on a jobs bank. Everybody from the sr. management to the UAW can play cards in large halls, and then some other company can be innovative, instead. :surprise: :shades:
I pointed out that USA wide, the buyers are getting into a new GM more often than any other brand. So I don't see their point about the GM warranty not measuring up. It measures up in generating sales.
I believe that GM is #1 in sales due to FLEETS. Certainly for cars, most consumers prefer buying other makes. I don't think it's the warranty that makes the decision whether FLEET buyers buy GM or not.
1) Because ... they don't have to pay the 35% corporate tax, as a result of their bankruptcy, while other companies do http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/23/news/companies/gm_bailout/index.htm. This means GM's profit is artificially high each year, and 2) somone want to remind me if their accounting has to be GAAP yet. I know they weren't for a while.
And as a general rule, companies measure their success in Profit as a return-on-investment - a percentage. So the larger the company, the more you expect its Profit to be.
BTW - should GM repay the Treasury like most banks repaid their TARP loans? Even AIG makes some payments to the Treasury?
Ok everyone who thinks GM is doing well, go take a look at how much cash GM has reported it has. Now go find how much the U.S. Treasury has lost on the stock that it sold, and the difference of what it is losing. Can GM repay - as it morally should - this gift/loan from the U.S. taxpayer? We're only talking the stock losses, not the previous BK grants, loans, and incentives that the D3 were getting.
I haven't run the numbers, but if GM tried to repay the U.S. taxpayer for the stock losses suffered to keep them in business, and to start paying their federal income tax, then GM is out-of-business again.
Let's write our personal GM-sob story letter, (circa 2008):
Oh Uncle Sam, I've got the biggest house in the neighborhood. I had it for 50 years. I employ a lot of good, union people to clean, cook, and landscape, and these people and I have contributed to your reelection campaigns each year. Even though I make $1M/year at my business, my expenses are $1.1M/year. And if I fail who, no one could possibly run my house and business. What I'm asking from you is:
1) take care of any pensions of my former employees 2) help me thru BK so I don't have to pay my suppliers in full 3) invest in my house and business, and I'll give you stock 4) can you not tax us for the next 5-10 years or so, so our profits look good, and we can stockpile some cash?
Oh and BTW Uncle Sam, you don't really expect us to repay any of this do you?
(P.S. - this is not a spam-scam from Nigeria)
Those idiots over at Ford, missed out on 1 of the great moments in economic history! The door to the Treasury was open!
So why aren't we all clamoring for the government to bailout Kodak similarly to GM? Isn't it a good idea to subsidize their products, and get their employment back up to the 100,000+ they used to have. A company with pensions, and where
"Most of the people who worked at Kodak had a middle-class life without a college education," Volpe said. "Those jobs paid so well, they could buy a boat, two cars, a summer place, and send their kids to college."
Maybe it was because they didn't have a powerful union lobbying in DC?
"Intent on keeping his work force happy — they never organized a union — Eastman helped pioneer profit-sharing and, in 1912, began dispensing a generous wage dividend. Going to work for Kodak — "taking the life sentence," as it was called — became a bountiful rite of passage for generations."
Come on people, Kodak is the type of company that we need to get DC to bailout! Let's throw them $100B, and I'm sure we'll get $200B back in benefit with all the economic activity that'll cause. It's a great investment; a no-brainer.
Now that Ford has officially and mercifully put the Ranger out of its misery, it looks like Chevy and GMC win 5th and 6th out of 6 different pickups recently tested.
Now that Ford has officially and mercifully put the Ranger out of its misery, it looks like Chevy and GMC win 5th and 6th out of 6 different pickups recently tested.
When I was looking at F150's a few months ago, the dealer had two Rangers on the lot. It was like looking back in time 15 years.
While I'm impressed with Ford has done with the F150, they sure ignored the Ranger. Yet it still handily out sold the Colorado/Canyon/Dakota combined. Must be a lot cheaper and maybe mostly fleet.
If you don't support Keynesian theory, then you support not allowing those who practice such theory (and those who flourish via less than legal or ethical means) unrestricted access to our markets, yes?
I could see it, simply to increase bonuses for a few who fear "class warfare" :shades: . If we get involved in another profit based war, all bets are off - but maybe some Volts will sell because of it.
We've gotten used to $3.50 gas. Don't be surprised to see $4 and maybe even $5 when the economy takes off. This would negatively impact pickups, big time.
One thing to consider is full size pickup truck sales have already suffered quite a bit from gas prices and the economy etc.
I'll use the f150 as an example as the f150 vs Silverado/Sierra combined have generally been close in sales.
F150 sales peaked in 2004 at 939k units. In 2011 the F150 sold 584k. IMO, many of those who really don't need a pickup have been flushed out.
Then consider the current F150 with 4wd and the ecoboost v6 is roughly 18% more fuel efficient than a 2004 F150 5.4v8 17mpg overall vs 14mpg. Plus the 3.7v6 model in 2wd form is rated for 19mpg overall.
I'd guess $5 gallon will hurt sales, but I don't think it will be as drastic as the first shock.
Looking at the f150 yearly sales, it seems the status of the economy hurt sales more than gas prices did. The bottom was 2009 and gas prices dropped to roughly where they were in 2004 and f150 sales were nearly 1/2 what they were in '04.
Comments
The glass half empty dredge that is the topic for the forum overlooks that Detroit is a small city surrounded by a very large number of suburbs. E.g., Hamtramck and Lake Orion where auto industry does make a difference. E.g., visiting our friends in Canton I drive past Yazaki North America at Haggerty and Warren Roads.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
There is a lot more to producing cars than the factories. Design, engineering, accounting, IT, HR, and marketing etc. A lot of that goes on in Detroit.
I believe there are around 5,000 employees at GM HQ alone. Then add Ford and Chrysler, and all of the suppier/vendors located in the area
Also, I'd guess when they say Detroit, they don't mean within the city limits, but also the surrounding area.
My bad, I somehow missed Kernick's post.
The article's focus was on the plight of Detroit (proper) which is so often used interchangeably with the U.S. D3.
Maybe the best link between the article and the general health of the D3, is that - the recent upswing for the auto industry hasn't been large enough for the offices and plants in and around Detroit, to hire enough people to fill in the vacant housing in Detroit, to work in the neighboring auto and auto-supplier plants.
The last 14 months are not shown on the graph.
No problem. I KNOW they are #1 in sales. Additionally, they are not #1 for the best cars in virtually EVERY category.
BTW, the market share loss started a few decades back. Did that "Recession" ever end for GM?? HA!
I guess every recession and the FACT that gas prices will remain high and those few other things will ensure that GM fails yet again? I assume those 'things' are insignificant to a successful automotive manufacturer.
2011 D3 Cars Sold: 2,029,255
2011 A4 Cars Sold: 2,981,900
D3 = GM, F and C
A4 = HonToyNisHyunKia
D3 Light Truck Sales 2011 = 3,986,757
A4 Light Truck Sales 2011 = 1,983,763
Regards,
OW
Actually market share removes overall sales fluctuations from the equation, and compares GM to competitors.
Gas prices will have an effect, but I don't think they're high right now. Oil is hovering around $100 a barrel, down from a high of $145. Believe it or not, oil is still cheap. It's very likely to go back up once the economy starts to recover in earnest.
We've gotten used to $3.50 gas. Don't be surprised to see $4 and maybe even $5 when the economy takes off. This would negatively impact pickups, big time.
That would be a dead-cat-bounce around 19% market share for the General.
Regards,
OW
But yes gasoline is not going back to $2/gal. All the risk is for oil and thus gasoline to increase. With the data circlew posted showing the reliance of the D3 on LT's, this is a high risk for the D3.
I'm thinking about my transportation options - everything from a Dodge Grand Caravan, to a sports car, to a BMW maxi-scooter. Probably to hedge my bets, I'd be best to go with something fuel efficient, and a BMW scooter just might fit the bill, for my 5 mile commute, and fun on the weekends. I'll keep my AWD cars for the inclement weather.
GM's option - a $40K, 4,000 LB Volt.
German automaker BMW is one of the most diverse brands in the industry, having branched itself out past its cars division into other ventures, particularly motorcycles.
At the company’s recent Motorrad Innovation Day 2011, the German brand unveiled their latest two-wheeled concept machine, the electric drive E-Scooter.
Featuring a design that lends itself to the lack of a main frame, the E-Scooter comes with an aluminum battery casing that is connected to the steering head support, the rear frame, and the left-hand mounted single swing arm, which is directly hinged to a horizontally installed shock absorber. The charging device of the E-Scooter comes with a charge cable that allows the bike’s battery to be recharged in a painless manner - any household power socket will suffice.
The electric drivetrain of the E-Scooter allows it to reduce its range by somewhere around 10 - 20 percent depending on the bike’s profile.
The E-Scooter’s performance numbers have yet to be announced, but BMW is pegging the bike to produce an output that ’s right around the range of maxi scooters that are currently powered by a 600-cc combustion engine with a driving range of well over 60 miles.
For a scooter that boasts of an electric drivetrain, that’s a mighty impressive number given that it compares favorably to its fuel counterparts.
Regards,
OW
1. Corolla - 1.02 million
2. Elantra - 1.01 million
3. Wuling Sunshine (GM China JV) - 943,000
4. Ford Focus - 919,000
5. Kia Rio - 815,537
6. Ford Fiesta - 781,147
7. VW Jetta - 745,000
8. Camry - 726,000
9. Chevy Cruze - 691,000
10. VW Golf - 648,000
11. VW Passat - 565,000
12. Honda Civic - 555,000
Regards,
OW
No single GM model is #1, but GM likely did lead global auto sales.
We need to support our US companies to the same level Asian companies have received from their governments.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That seems a little like the PIGS, who decided to borrow $ to artificially create jobs in their countries, promise pensions to those employees, and who now find themselves having to increase their borrowing and debt beyond what anyone is really willing to lend them.
Consider this all you Keynesian types. If the way out of a slow economy, and the way to employ more people is to simply have the government spend more, becuase for every $1 spent there is more money made, then why doesn't the Fed and Treasury just pump $20T into GM and the economy and we'll all be employed working 2 jobs, and be wealthy beyond belief?
Because bailouts and deficit spending do NOT work when the cause of the economic problems is debt itself. GM and its jobs have been saved at a cost approaching or beyond $100B. It's still inefficient with no breakthru ideas or reinvention of how to make and market autos. It still relies on large, low mpg vehicles for most of its sales. Similarly banks, AIG, Fannie Mae, and other bailouts have cost over a trillion $'s, if you add in all the stimuli that the government had to make to the general populace, because of the consequences of their actions. We have 9% unemployment + many discouraged workers, after these bailouts. The end result is we've stabilized the economy for a couple of years at great expense.
We are broke! We are quickly approaching the time where we can't just get another credit card to pay the other credit cards. We already borrowed from all the neighbors, and they're not going to keep making us loans forever, as we keep going deeper and deeper into debt. Spending more has NOT spurred our income. It has put us deeper into debt. Those are the facts! Look at any of the last 4-5 years whether Bush or Obama, Dem. or Rep. Congress, the more they've spent and bailed out the deeper our debt has gone.
I don't consider "government the solution; they're the problem". After writing the rules-of-the-game, government should be nothing more than a referee, and stop screwing up the game, playing favorites for their "buddies, and enriching themselves.
GM can lower the price of the Volt to sell at a loss until the market is established.
Let's just make the $7,500 tax credit, an instant $30K rebate? :P How did giving Solyndra and other solar panel companies a billion $'s establish a market? Did that work? Have any of the incentives handed out to solar and wind companies for decades ever work? No!
Let's just use Keynesian economics again.
Well our deficits and debt show that doesn't work. It's a story, a lie, and a failed theory. It's a lie to get the common person to accept the transfer of their $ to the wealthy and powerful who will benefit from the bailouts. It's a lie to the gullible; Snake-Oil Salesmen on a grand scale!
I know some of you want to believe our leaders are working for the common person, and are competent, and have competent advisors. Look around you at your neighborhoods, local economies, friends and families ... and see what $10T of debt increase in the last decade (or so) has bought.
Government spending, bailouts, growth, and policies in general have failed.
But no one here can explain why that is necessarily good. Let me be Economics teacher here and ask: was it GM #1 in global auto sales when they went bankrupt? If so, does it really matter if you're #1 in global auto sales?
2nd Economics/Finance question: What does matter. I'll answer that: Profits and Cash Flow.
How does Q2 relate to my first question. If you're not making a profit on each auto on average, then all you're doing by sbeing #1 in sales is losing money quicker! Eventually bankruptcy!
What will sink faster - a rowboat or an ocean liner? The answer: whichever has the bigger hole!
actually...NO
if a manufacturer sells V8 powered trucks in the millions and 4 cyl cars in the hundreds of thousands, they would be expected to be hit harder by the gas price spike, compared to a company for which V8 trucks is a small percent of overall sales.
I'll help you get back on track. My comments were in response to the discussions centered around how GM's warranty isn't good enough for several posters here. I pointed out that USA wide, the buyers are getting into a new GM more often than any other brand. So I don't see their point about the GM warranty not measuring up. It measures up in generating sales. Why pay for more of the customer's wishes like 2 yrs maintenance, etc, when you are already no. 1 in sales?
So a better warranty trumps more desirable product? You'd think if GM's warranty was such a huge hit, it would have had more of an effect when it was introduced back in 2007. From what I recall, GM's market share didn't start improving until they actually started building cars people desired.
I'm not singling out GM's warranty. I don't place a warranty very high on my want list when buying a vehicle, it's the last thing I consider.
I buy what I want, if I feel I need a better warranty I'll just pay for the manufacturers extended warranty. I'm not going to buy one vehicle over another based on a limited warranty. Now if I like two vehicles the same, that might be different, but I've never had that happen.
No; GM lost the No. 1 position first then went bankrupt. It re-emerged from the bankruptcy and reclaimed the No. 1 position remarkably quick. Of course it matters to be No. 1, in NBA, in country's GDP ranking, in auto market too.
2nd Economics/Finance question: What does matter. I'll answer that: Profits and Cash Flow.
GM makes the most profit last year.
I think we should provide enough subsidy such that the entire company of GM can be put on a jobs bank. Everybody from the sr. management to the UAW can play cards in large halls, and then some other company can be innovative, instead. :surprise: :shades:
I believe that GM is #1 in sales due to FLEETS. Certainly for cars, most consumers prefer buying other makes. I don't think it's the warranty that makes the decision whether FLEET buyers buy GM or not.
GM's retail sales alone is more than Toyota's total sales (retail and fleet together)!
See my previous post: link title
1) Because ... they don't have to pay the 35% corporate tax, as a result of their bankruptcy, while other companies do http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/23/news/companies/gm_bailout/index.htm. This means GM's profit is artificially high each year, and
2) somone want to remind me if their accounting has to be GAAP yet. I know they weren't for a while.
And as a general rule, companies measure their success in Profit as a return-on-investment - a percentage. So the larger the company, the more you expect its Profit to be.
BTW - should GM repay the Treasury like most banks repaid their TARP loans? Even AIG makes some payments to the Treasury?
I haven't run the numbers, but if GM tried to repay the U.S. taxpayer for the stock losses suffered to keep them in business, and to start paying their federal income tax, then GM is out-of-business again.
Let's write our personal GM-sob story letter, (circa 2008):
Oh Uncle Sam, I've got the biggest house in the neighborhood. I had it for 50 years. I employ a lot of good, union people to clean, cook, and landscape, and these people and I have contributed to your reelection campaigns each year. Even though I make $1M/year at my business, my expenses are $1.1M/year. And if I fail who, no one could possibly run my house and business. What I'm asking from you is:
1) take care of any pensions of my former employees
2) help me thru BK so I don't have to pay my suppliers in full
3) invest in my house and business, and I'll give you stock
4) can you not tax us for the next 5-10 years or so, so our profits look good, and we can stockpile some cash?
Oh and BTW Uncle Sam, you don't really expect us to repay any of this do you?
(P.S. - this is not a spam-scam from Nigeria)
Those idiots over at Ford, missed out on 1 of the great moments in economic history! The door to the Treasury was open!
"Most of the people who worked at Kodak had a middle-class life without a college education," Volpe said. "Those jobs paid so well, they could buy a boat, two cars, a summer place, and send their kids to college."
Maybe it was because they didn't have a powerful union lobbying in DC?
"Intent on keeping his work force happy — they never organized a union — Eastman helped pioneer profit-sharing and, in 1912, began dispensing a generous wage dividend. Going to work for Kodak — "taking the life sentence," as it was called — became a bountiful rite of passage for generations."
Come on people, Kodak is the type of company that we need to get DC to bailout! Let's throw them $100B, and I'm sure we'll get $200B back in benefit with all the economic activity that'll cause. It's a great investment; a no-brainer.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/story/2012-01-19/Kodak-bankruptc- - - y/52660342/1
Up from 18% at bankruptcy. Nice! Let's see 2012. Another .1 - .2% if gas prices stay at $3 per gallon. Otherwise, flat.
Given their Opel problems, the stock price isn't going to make much upside.
Same old GM. Too big in reality. Behind the competition in most areas. Always playing catch up.
Like you all know, GM will probably need more bailouts going forward. No problem!
Regards,
OW
Agreed! But does not have the most desired models!
Regards,
OW
----------------------
So that would make YOU an Internet troll in my opinion. Get a real life.
If you think I'm a troll now, you should have been around when I actually owned a GM vehicle;)
I've mellowed a bit since then. Well I think I have.
Anyway, welcome to the forum;)
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/story/2012-01-18/midsize-pickup-truck-shooto- ut/52650846/1
When I was looking at F150's a few months ago, the dealer had two Rangers on the lot. It was like looking back in time 15 years.
While I'm impressed with Ford has done with the F150, they sure ignored the Ranger. Yet it still handily out sold the Colorado/Canyon/Dakota combined. Must be a lot cheaper and maybe mostly fleet.
Sometimes, from an emotional standpoint, as you mentioned in sports.
Also, it's good to be the top dog in winning wars.
However, I eat every day, but could care less who is at the top In fast-food offerings. Unless I'm investing $$$ in that market segment, I don't care.
Yep, things have a way of self-balancing themselves.
I still think $3.50 gas is the new "cheap". Watch for $4 gas by Memorial Day.
$7,500 is not enough?
You get another $2,000 in the state of Maryland, too.
$9,500 total.
Volt is getting *plenty* of subsidy, far more than the Escape hybrid and VW TDI did.
OK, I have to ask...
What gas price spike?
Oil hovers around $100 a barrel, which is cheap. What if it hit $145 again?
Thanks for the support;)
One thing to consider is full size pickup truck sales have already suffered quite a bit from gas prices and the economy etc.
I'll use the f150 as an example as the f150 vs Silverado/Sierra combined have generally been close in sales.
F150 sales peaked in 2004 at 939k units. In 2011 the F150 sold 584k. IMO, many of those who really don't need a pickup have been flushed out.
Then consider the current F150 with 4wd and the ecoboost v6 is roughly 18% more fuel efficient than a 2004 F150 5.4v8 17mpg overall vs 14mpg. Plus the 3.7v6 model in 2wd form is rated for 19mpg overall.
I'd guess $5 gallon will hurt sales, but I don't think it will be as drastic as the first shock.
Looking at the f150 yearly sales, it seems the status of the economy hurt sales more than gas prices did. The bottom was 2009 and gas prices dropped to roughly where they were in 2004 and f150 sales were nearly 1/2 what they were in '04.
Their comment on the Ford Ranger was almost identical to yours...
Darn things can cost a bunch of $$$, too.
Another good sign for the auto industry...especially the D3.