By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2009/09/06/why-you-shouldnt-listen-to-jim-- cramer.aspx
Disclaimer: I am not an investor nor do I have knowledge or insider info on anything stock related. I have "gut instinct" which has gotten me into trouble about as much as it has paid off, lol
Regarding FB, I think if anything, that whole "timeline" B.S. is driving more people away than luring them in... :sick:
About the '56 Packards--they rode wonderfully (and I've ridden in several), but they can be a mechanical nightmare. They are solid and plush, but I'm not a fan of the high beltline and 'chunky' looks. I like them, looks-wise, better than a '54 or earlier one, though. Being a Studebaker guy, I'd prefer a '57 supercharged "Packardbaker" wagon, and I'd even consider a '58 Packard if it were a two-door hardtop. I like the proportions (hate the double fins of the '58 though), but trust me, I can see why Packard owners were disappointed then, to say the least!
Amazingly, with the exception of Caribbeans and the best Four-Hundreds out there, "Packardbakers" appear to repeatedly bring more on eBay, bodystyle for bodystyle, condition for condition, than earlier '50's Packards, despite what any value guide might say.
Among '56 Packards, I could certainly enjoy a Scottish Heather and white Four-Hundred hardtop! Beautiful interiors. Dick Teague did an excellent facelift on the '51 body without spending much money. Great taillights too of course!
Have seen Cramer fess up to his mistakes. Don't know about Florida though.
Biden said their go-to guy on questions on the economy, financial was Jon Corzine. How is he and his investment company doing.
Things like Facebook and other social media sites are very fickle. They rage until the public feels something better has arrived, then they flock to it wildly.
That doesn't mean money can't be made, but usually when these types finally make it to the IPO stage, much of the money that's going to be made... Already has been made.... For someone else.
And, the IPO system on Wall Street is "rigged" against the individual investor and geared towards the institutional investor group.
If you are investing YOUR $$$$ you should take the appropriate time to do the due diligence and understand what you're buying, rather than take some other guy's advice.
General Motors (GM) is falling about 2% this morning after beating analysts’ earnings estimates as the company posted strong U.S. profits but reported a loss in Europe and market share losses worldwide.
Regards,
OW
>Didn't Cramer gain a bit of notoriety by advising
I think the problems with Jim Cramer as sugarcoated a little in this Wiki writeup. I understood his problems with the SEC or some agency were more meaningful than this article makes him seem to have had.
I personally consider him a slickster. He's out to make money -- for Jim.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Even in the US market that now provides the lion’s share of its profit, GM is losing ground to the competition. North American market share has also fallen for the last three quarters, now standing at 16.4%, some 2.4% lower than Q2 2011. US dealer inventories jumped dramatically in the quarter as well, from 583,000 to 713,000. All this in the face of above-average incentives (as a % of average transaction price) and subprime financing (8.2% compared to an industry average of 6%). In light of these developments, GM’s ability to earn the majority of its profits in North America speaks to its bailout-streamlined cost structure. Still, there’s no denying that things are not headed in the right direction.
GM Europe continues to be the source of the most serious bad news, although its $300m loss is half of the Q4 2011 number. Still, restructuring and plant shutdowns will cost GM a pretty penny at some point in the not-to-distant future, and until that bitter medicine is administered, GME can only try to control its losses. GM South America turned the corner into profitability, yielding a $100m gain on its lowest production volume in over a year (albeit with steady market share).
But GM’s opaque “International Operations,” which include Korea, Australia and the crown jewel of China show some of the most troubling signs of malaise. With costs rising faster than volume and pricing gains could make up for, GMIO’s EBIT declined by $100m compared to Q1 2011. With the Chinese market cooling off, GMIO is also losing market share at a steady .1% per quarter for the last three quarters. Given how crucial China is to GM’s global future, this is not a promising development.
This is not a return to “Deathwatch” territory by a long shot, as GM still has $31.5b of government cash and equivalents on hand, and $37.3b of available liquidity. But the premise that GM simply needed a bailout in order to soar to global dominance is certainly wearing thin. And with the government waiting for an uptick in GM’s stock price to sell its stock at a politically-palatable price, mediocre results like this will allow the stigma of government ownership to linger.
Regards,
OW
The next headline will be how China sales are saving GM's bacon; China is cooling but for them, growth going from 20% to 10% is a depression.
It's sort of like holding a basket of stocks and other assets. Hopefully the dogs (or doggy markets) will be offset by the one or two winners while the rest throttles along. Maybe GM needs to move more aggressively into India next. Or stick with trucks and head for more parts of Africa.
Isn't that the objective for all of these guys (money for THEM)?
Anyone that makes you feel a little bit "greasy" after interacting with them probalbly should be scrutinized heavily before running with their advice and suggestions...
Didn't there used to be two drops left in the glass?
Incentives? Incentives? I'm not holding my breath until I can get 4k off on a Cruze just by walking onto the Chevy lot. I would consider getting one if I could get even $3k off on one through incentives. Rather than spend my time searching for proof that GM's glass is only half full, or by thinking about how much of my future tax dollars went into the Malibu discount I got. I'm thinking instead about how it now saves me 8 cents a mile in gas compared to my next most efficient car today.
What asset ownership level does he have?
Seems common sense to avoid using anyone with less assets that you have. After all, if he's that good, why isn't he ahead of you?
I like the old story about a customer of a financial firm pulling up to the office: "I know the advisors all have yachts. Where are their customers' yachts?"
Somebody is paying for those marble floors and fancy cars in the parking lot of your big financial firms.
I wonder if some of those same types of advisors have been the ones managing GM's finances pre-BK?
I think most consumers are happier with better new-car pricing than if the company is making more profit per car than the next manufacturer. That said, I do think, of course, most car buyers aren't 'buffs' and follow whatever "advice" they see, instead of actually trying the cars themselves.
A new company would have shed the stigma and the eerily close operational aspects that are continuing from the "Old GM".
It's a small world, after all.
GM needs to price right in the first place and ramp up efforts to trim high excess costs by getting more efficient everywhere. They know that but it's even harder to do now (given the global economy) even despite not paying taxes based on bailout rules.
Regards,
OW
.....although the company still needs to overcome a legacy of producing gas-guzzlers with quality problems.
IMHO, GM needs 3 more years to overcome that legacy as all the old models go away and the new ones speak for themselves.
Regards,
OW
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
They keep working so hard to try to keep the old stereotype going, I have to wonder if this has reached a Münchausen syndrom level of compulsion for some who seem so desperate! GM had better than Street estimates for earnings!!! That's great. As the older designs work their way to replacement by newer versions and models, this will only get better when averaged over the year. I usually skip some posts, but they make good entertainment in desperation. At least we're not hearing how wunderbar Kia products are!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
It's just a car, buy what you like and can afford. Most cars are pretty reliable these days. There's no use overextending yourself and losing sleep over a car loan.
I'd be happier with a GM than a brand with few dealerships and/or iffy commitment to North America. Like Suzuki or Mitsubishi. Something like a MINI or Jaguar or Land Rover would be harder to get warranty service done in many markets.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
DETROIT (Reuters) - General Motors Co offered investors a disappointing outlook for the upcoming six months in North America, raising questions about the U.S. economy's recovery and sending its shares down 2.3 percent.
While the world's largest automaker posted a first-quarter profit that surpassed forecasts, the outlook for its core market fell short of expectations. GM's results echoed those of smaller rival Ford Motor Co , which last week also posted a stronger-than-expected profit, but offered a disappointing forecast.
GM's North American results in the first quarter were also shy of Wall Street's expectations.
Selling the shares now would result in deeper losses than taxpayers incurred on the $33-per-share initial offering. To break even on its $49.5 billion investment in GM, the government must sell the rest of its shares at about $53 each, although the Obama administration has signaled that it's willing to take some loss.
Meanwhile, back at the growth side of the industry:
Despite the less than stellar overall numbers for the month, the Korean car companies are still getting rave reviews after Hyundai's Elantra won the 'North American Car of the Year', sales rose by 20,000 units compared to a year earlier.
Kia's signature car, the 'Optima' was up a whopping 69 percent compared to last year, with approximately 11,000 units sold in April :shades:
Regards,
OW
Yes, we're working hard at it. So is GM:
Malibu still ranked LAST in a recent comparo of midsized family sedans (even though it continues to improve, which shows you how BAD it was in the past)...
GM reliability still ranked POOR vs. most other makers over plenty of models in CU annual auto survey....
GM firing R&D staff and putting out marketing-babble on how forward-looking they are....
Yup, I guess it's people trying to make GM look bad. They're really quite outstanding relative to their competition.
Of all the negative comments I have seen/heard about GM, that is the one that sticks with me the most.
The fastest way to prop up your income sheet and balance statement in the short term is to kill off R & D and customer service. The early numbers look great, but then start falling like a rock.
Example: Sunbeam corporation under the management of Chainsaw Al...
http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_42/b3651099.htm
Now, its possible the folks GM got rid of were in "brother-in-law" jobs, but I somehow doubt it.
Certainly, it looks bad from the outside. One thing is for sure... time will tell...
Outsourcing engineering overseas?
If that's true, isn't that a great way to show the American taxpayer he did the right thing by bailing GM out?
If it is, it makes zero sense...
Outsourcing engineering overseas?
If that's true, isn't that a great way to show the American taxpayer he did the right thing by bailing GM out?
If it is, it makes zero sense...
This entire discussion is a good example of the unintended consequences of what happens when you intervene in the normal business of capitalism. A failed company (due to poor management and decisions) is bailed out, and then makes decisions to help itself, which in this case means moving more of its business offshore. You can't fault GM for trying to survive, but that survival also means moving a lot of the money that GM possesses outside of the U.S.
However, the entire incident flies in the face of what many politicians continue to sell their constituents regarding "free trade", and how it benefits the US.
I keep hearing that we're keeping the high-paying high-tech positions here, and moving the lower-tech, more "labor intensive" positions elsewhere, thereby keeping some sort of theoretical equilibrium.
Well, that obviously didn't happen here, did it?
I wonder who GM's management expects to buy its cars here, and with what?
Hell, even Henry Ford figured that out 100 years ago.
That's the fly in the ointment, as it relates to free trade. It's one thing to cut YOUR costs by moving manufacturing elsewhere, and having other companies pay THEIR domestic workers decent wages... So they can still afford YOUR products.
What happens when everyone joins that process, and there aren't any decent wages being paid anymore? Who's going to be buying products then?
Lastly, I think we CAN complain about GM moving production and design offshore. The taxpayer got sold a bill of goods, in which we HAD to save GM to save domestic jobs. Seems to me that bit of logic falls flat on its face!
Of the R&D jobs, "GM will eliminate roughly 100 jobs at its technical center in Warren, Michigan, and 90 positions in Bangalore, India." (ninemsn.com.au)
In the EU, "GM has been working to reduce its bloated European headcount through attrition and buyouts and is in talks with its unions on plans to "match production to demand," Akerson said." (Yahoo)
Fixing it a little late. Nothing new, typical GM.
Regards,
OW
Does he really think there is no one willing to take on the challenge that's also capable and not in it just for himself? What difference, I wonder, would we see in GM if, instead of the government bailout, GM was taken over by Berkshire Hathaway or an entity like that?
Believe me, there was nothing natural about that disaster.
Of course, Akerson is going to be in sales mode. I would, too, if I was in his shoes.
I stated from the beginning that I didn't know the background behind why these folks got canned, and to be honest, all we know is what's been printed in the papers.
Nevertheless, the premise of the fallacy of free trade, as it has been implemented in the US, still holds true.
Walmart is just the tip of the iceberg.
We're in a race to the bottom.
Horsehockey.Okay, let me rephrase that.
It's not all doom and gloom out there.
I agree that economies are cyclical, but the underlying difference in this cycle is the influence of globalization.
Overall, I'm not against it, and in fact, I support it....implemented in the correct fashion.
Our standard of living cannot survive if we compete in a totally unregulated pattern against countries like China. It's mathematically impossible.
There's still time for us to get it right, but the idea of the US being the intellectual center of the universe, as it has been since 1945, no longer holds true.
The US no longer holds the cards on manufacturing infrastructure as it did for the 40-50 years after WW II.
20 years ago, we were an importer of talented intellectual and educated minds. Now, a large % of those that do still come he for an education see more options at home than here, and they go back.
We are losing our lead in field after field.
I have some history in taking bankrupt companies through Chapter 11, and one thing that has always stuck in my mind is something a bankruptcy attorney (the one that got me involved with the companies) told me once...
"you can't smell any more like crap than crap, so go ahead and take your beatings all at once".
What he meant by that was, in a technology based company in bankruptcy, if you have the access to $$$, go ahead and invest as much as you can in the latest tech and get a leg-up on the competition.
Other than the Volt (which I avidly support), laying off engineers, at least on the surface, seems to be the exact opposite of the way to go...
I think our future is more bright than either China or Japan. China has been booming but their immigration policies are as backward as Japan's and the Swiss, and their birthrate is down there with Japan's. They're going have some real problems in the not to distant future (Bloomberg). And from that link, the median age in the EU is older than that of Florida, our "oldest" state.
What that tells me is that GM is going to sell a whole lot of Buicks in China, but NA will wind up remaining their manufacturing and revenue generating stronghold.
We do need to get back to encouraging foreign students to attend school here and open up the H1-B visas more. Right now, we're focusing on handing out J-I visas for the slime line workers in Alaska. Funny that they can't find enough domestic workers to do that work (I guess former fish processor Hillary Clinton is otherwise occupied, lol).
It does have implications economically, however, which I suspect China will have some difficulty adapting to...
But, let's also remember that the rest of the world exists beyond China, into India, and beyond.... And the vast majority with a much lower standard of living than the US enjoys. Solving China only kicks the can down the road a bit...
There will always be some other country with less costs to manufacture, and like a vacuum, that's where manufacturing will be drawn towards. That's why we need to get a better handle on exactly how we define "free trade".
As an example...Even now, China is sitting on many (in some cases, almost all) of the rare-earth minerals needed in many high-tech product manufacturing processes. Their idea of "free trade" doesn't include the open market buying and selling of those minerals. That's not a communist/socialist thing, but a nationalist thing.
How we end up dealing with situations such as that will ultimately determine if free trade is a boom or bust idea.
I wonder how many of those JI visas will end up being paid under the table with undocumented wages...
And then they won't be able to afford that new Corvette that's coming.
Non-assimilation is a real problem, especially in Europe.
No offense, but what a dopey comment.
You're so hung up on what trendy writers/entertainers at a magazine say, yet you completely ignore that the Malibu was MT's COTY when introduced and as late as 2011 was rated as a 'Best Buy' for the fourth year straight from Consumer Guide, and your beloved CR still calls it 'recommended'.
My guess is that you have not so much as sat in a Malibu. I own one, we love it, and I have driven comparable vehicles.
It is priced so much less than other cars, that it's a great value--the 2012--which is no doubt why AOL Autos called it just a few weeks ago 'the best value in America'.
Of course, that's all lost on you.
GM had better get ahead of the curve in cutting jobs and production in Europe. There are 2 elections today - Greece and France and at best the results of those elections will either keep Europe on a path to a BAD outcome; or the results are going to make things MUCH worse. Europe and the Euro are going down, as they're throwing money in a bottomless gorge. They have no growth prospects and they can't afford their standard of living.
The same is and will happen here in the U.S., as just like GM overspent, made $-promises, while becoming less productive; the U.S. government is doing the same. If you consider nothing else, think of this:
1) After spending trillions of dollars on bailouts and stimulus in the last few years, 2) the Fed lowering interest rates to 0%, and 3) the Federal Reserve devaluing our $ with their QE-programs, THIS economy is what it bought!
So there is much more pain to come. We've kicked-the-can-down-the-road. GM and every other manufacturer had better batten-down-the-hatches, because all these governments have done is temporarily kept the ships in the eye of the hurricane.
I suspect that you'll still be able to get into a Vette for around $50, unlike the Viper, which will start near $100k.
Vette Sales - 32,000/yr avg - 2002-2007
Mustang sales - 140,000/yr avg - 2002-2007
2008-2011 Vette - 14,000/yr. avg.
2008 - 2011 Mustang - 70,000/yr. avg.
The economy is at "new reality" levels in sports car sales! Can't use the house for leverage anymore. :shades:
Regards,
OW
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Yeah, you can load up a Mustang, but you can also load up a Camaro and pay Vette prices for one of those. GM has a nice niche there.
But sorry, Imidazol97, I don't think going back to those roots would help the brand.
Whatever Ford has done well with the Mustang, Chevrolet has done better with the Camaro as per the thinking on this forum that sales equals 'better', as since April 2009, the Mustang has sold 228,866 units versus 262,567 for the Camaro--and those numbers reflecting also that Mustang has had a convertible longer than Camaro.
I'd post the Mustang site where I got those last, cumulative numbers, but staying on that site makes my computer screen go blank after several seconds.
Here is a good link about April's sales however:
http://www.torquenews.com/106/camaro-leads-sales-challenger-growth-april-2012
The point I see Circle making is that ALL sales of sports car's, as represented by two popular domestic makes that CAN be compared, has dropped roughly 50% over the last 3 years.
It would be more revealing to see that data by year, in order to see if sales for sports car's have started "ticking" back up, as I would think they have, or if it's a bona-fide trend that seems to be setting in for the long term...
If I was able to locate a comparison of Camaro and Mustang sales from April 2009 to present, does anything earlier really matter at this point? We have three solid years of data to compare for these two cars which are far more similar in buyer demographic than the Corvette and Mustang.
I mean, we can compare the sales of Sebring convertibles to BMW convertibles too, but that doesn't make it a smart comparison.
Exactly. The sports car sales dropped off with the economic collapse.
Since Camaro was launched in 2009, they enjoy a commanding lead over 'Stang in sales as follows:
2009 - 61,648 vs. 66,623
2010 - 81,299 vs. 73,716
2011 - 88,249 vs. 70,438
I presume the Camaro would have had annual sales in the 150K range if it existed pre-2009.
Regards,
OW