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
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/gms-sloppy-bookkeeping/story.aspx?guid=%7B- - 667FC67B%2D7722%2D4A8E%2DA5B7%2D0605E7726BCD%7D&dist=TQP_Mod_mktwN
Does anyone want to make an excuse for GM's incompetence in this instance, also?
Who of the GM supporters wants to rush out and invest their life savings in GM? Loan them the money, go ahead.
But the answer might be no more money.
"It's a two-edged sword," Conway said. GM's shares fell 29 cents, or 11.3 percent, to $2.26 in early trading. Shares have fallen 91 percent in the last year.
You know they will get the cash.
As far as the Bean Counter, they cut the costs of the cars to give it to the UAW. I could have done a better job in the rest room! Bookkeeping errors? Laughable.
They can't even forecast sales in a down market.
Regards,
OW
See, that is all the more reason that GM should NOT be releasing any new models. This includes the new Traverse, etc. At this point, they should be focusing on the cars they currently have out. Perhaps re-evaluate current sales, removing certain cars from the line-up that are not helping the company in income.
GM has continued to run as normal, when it is no working for them. Putting more and more cars out that are just so so and not selling high numbers.
GM needs to downsize! Immediately!! Go on a diet, start from scratch!
Sometimes you have to hit rock bottom, before you can move forward.
They have hit the ground hard. In order to gain their footing, they need to open up more cash flow for the future, not only just now, but for the future. Meaning, they need to look within the company rather than outside the company for its funding.
Downsizing the company to its more premium and appealing cars that sell highly, would be the best result for more cash flow. This could open an immediate open flow, by stop the cost of making the car, and it sitting on the lots for months. BUT, doing so, lays off many many employees. So I think what others have said, it will cut both ways. AHHH!! Makes your head spin.
I really want them to get better, I know they can, but they need to look within themselves and stop taking so much help from us. Either way though, its going to hurt someone in the end. Its going to hurt at first, something must be done. They cannot gain our bail out and keep all the perks.
It would be like me borrowing a $200 from someone, and I showed great need. But, I went out and bought myself a new fossil watch at Macy's. I feel this, as a customer, that GM is doing exactly this!! I pray they get their game together. Its not good.
Who knows, this is probably the 1 and a million ways they could get better, but it just doesn't seem like they are putting any effort. Either way its going to hurt,
GM swallow your pride, do the right thing for all of us. :confuse: :sick:
T
That goes w/o saying. Guys like Bill Mitchell were savants in their field. Question; Do you feel that this retro look thing has been overdone by the auto mfrs? I don't. I think that the D3 could use these heritage designs, modernize them (ala the Mustang and Camaro) and put them out there for the public to generate enthusiasm in their products. Imagine the 2013 Malibu coming out as a modern version of that '68. Do you think that might put more fannies in the seats of a Malibu? This is something that the Germans can do, but the Japanese brands have no answer for.
Now, we are ALL GM supporters thanks to the bailout.
The next question is, since we need GM for reasons of national security, and the people who make U.S. laws are the big new investors in GM, will they make some new laws now that restrict competition from imports such that they get a payback from their investment in GM? The alternative is lose the ability to recoup money already invested and to incurr more expenses with continued layoffs. In addition, those newly elected bought the union vote to get there, and NOW it is time to pay them back. Do you actually expect something different?
We can all choose to let the goverment burn our own money only. We can't seem to stop the gov't from wasting our money on GM, but we can certainly help them burn it!
By avoidiing GM, by not buying their products, by not supporting GM products we will speak with our wallets and let the money burn and go to waste.
I'd rather the money go to waste than support Chrysler, GM, or any bailout company for that matter. Let them all rot! let them all go to hell!
Finally, at some point, the politicians will get the point and give in to their own stupidity. At some point, they will stop the madness.
I'm a shareholder in GM as a taxpayer, and if I'm elected to be CEO, I want to run the company into the ground, so that the only ill effects my future children will feel from GM is the debt already incurred.
I could not live with myself if I support GM to exist long enough to ruin the lives of my potential future children more then that scenario I describe above.
Our future generations are already impacted by the bailout of GM. Let's not make it worse by actually SUPPORTING GM. Let this investment turn into the bad investment it is, it was, and will always be. Let it go down as the worst political idea of the 21st Century (Thanks Bush!).
The only thing worse than what has already happened is the idea that we will give GM and Chrysler annual bailouts for the next 50 years and then even with all that, have them declare bankruptcy in the year 2059. Cut your losses now at what it currently is at 14 billion for GM. Why cause taxpayers to invest more in this loser?
Ever hear of throwing good money after bad?
Uhh, how exactly do you figure that? Unless you're maybe talking about the movie...
The Government has about 650,000 vehicles in use right now. My suggestion that they take over GM's domestic operations entirely and build cars at cost(read - half what they currently pay!) is a sound one that would save us billions per year. And the factories would stay open. Of course, offer excess cars at cost as well to the public.
The rest of the company can be left alone or spun off as a division that handles overseas sales only. This part of the business seems to be doing just fine.
Fire the management. Keep the R&D guys. Fire the marketing idiots. Keep the factory workers.
Wouldn't that be cutting off your kids nose to spite your face??? How about forcing them to run a proper business so they will make a profit (unless you'd be more incompetent that you think Wagoner is)??
Good God, think before you speak. I want a chance at a return on my tax dollars, not somebody who will piss it away foolishly.
Great concept, but I don't think so. GM lost approx $30B last year on global sales of approx. 8M vehicles. That's a loss of $3700 per vehicle! So if you want to buy cars "at cost" you would raise the price by $3700 each!
If the average vehicle was $20K, this makes the profit margin of GM a negative 18%!
And that was mostly BEFORE the big sales drops. Epic FAILURE.
You want a good return on your dollars? Great, I'm glad you oppose the bailout, as an ROI is very unlikely.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
And that's federal. If you add in state governments, it's millions of vehicles in service.
Or what - we're going to be left with imports for government vehicles when the D3 all go under? That'll sit well with the more conservative members of Congress...
Yes...the current model of the Malibu is ok but it would be phenomenal in the 68 - 70 design.
Regards,
OW
We've already done the foolish thing giving to them in the first place... Consider it "pissed away" already.
I think you and dave aren't acknowledging that GM is a legal entity - with certain contracts and leaders; GM is not the physical assets they own. We want the contracts, leaders and management system swept away, and the plants and business run with new management, and leaders. Your view that doing away with GM means that all workers and plants are idled, never to run again, is not accurate or what is hoped for.
Remember AT&T - did phone service stop when it was broken up? never to be restarted? The service or plants can still run but under new management and new management systems.
The reason you don't hear this truth from some here is that they have a bias based on making money from the continuation of the failed system we have now. There are people who would lose their investments, or get a pay cut, or see their pensions cut, or see their dealership fold, or lose their warranty. It is these people that makeup the story that GM can't fail and if it does there won't be any autos produced, and all the suppliers fail. Bulloney!!
February 27, 2009 - 10:46 am ET
UPDATED: 2/27/09 11:48 a.m. EST
RUESSELSHEIM, Germany (Reuters) -- General Motors' German unit Opel today agreed to a restructuring plan that aims to save as many jobs and factories as possible but needs 3.3 billion euros ($4.18 billion) in state aid, GM officials said.
The idea is to split off Opel into a separate unit that would remain linked to its stricken U.S. parent while letting outside investors take a stake of more than a quarter, GM Europe President Carl-Peter Forster told a news conference on Friday.
GM Europe would include UK unit Vauxhall into the new corporate entity. The spinoff could range from 25 percent to 50 percent of the company.
"GM could be a majority shareholder in the new business structure with more than 50 percent," a GM Europe source told Automotive News Europe.
There are still no decisions about plant closures or forced layoffs, Forster said.
Through the restructuring and using conservative market assumptions, GM Europe/Opel aims to become profitable by 2011.
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090227/ANA02/902279965/1193-
(registration link)
I assume this will eventually lead to GM NOT being a majority stakeholder in the European operation. The future of Opel and Vauxhall can only be improved by getting out from under GM management.
In other news, when examining the losses GM posted yesterday, I noticed that GM reported losses in ALL FOUR regions, including Asia Pacific and Europe. This is a company so obsessed with gaining market share at any cost (they are always trumpeting news of increasing market share in South America, China, you name it) that the cost is they sell cars at a loss worldwide. :sick:
I think the idea is not bad of GM becoming the government's car building department, although I suppose Ford and to some extent Chrysler would not be too pleased....nor will the GM dealers suddenly left out to swing in the breeze. Let's get the inevitable bankruptcy proceedings started, can't we PLEASE?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Regards,
OW
Cadillac STS/DTS replacement to be FWD?
The world may not be enough to keep General Motors Corp. afloat.
As the ailing automaker gutted through a years-long North American restructuring that morphed last fall into pleas for a $30 billion lifeline from the feds, GM's revenue and, especially, profits from China, Latin America and robust growth in Eastern Europe partially offset massive losses back home.
Not anymore.
The foreign strands of GM's safety net, according to its year-end financials Thursday, are fraying quickly, too. Fourth-quarter revenue from Asia -- $2.6 billion -- is less than half what it was a year ago. Latin America ended the quarter $578 million in the red. Production in Europe slid 53.2 percent to 214,000 cars, contributing to a $1.6 billion pre-tax loss in Europe for the year.
GM's Saab Automobile AB is in bankruptcy, ostensibly to recapitalize itself but most likely to die. Its Adam Opel AG unit in Germany wants financial help from an irritated government in Berlin. And GM altogether is seeking $6 billion in aid from foreign governments, none of which is keen to bail out an American behemoth tied to American bankers blamed for the global financial mess.
The simultaneous downturns are harsh reminders that tapping new markets, setting standards in places like China, Russia and the largest markets of Latin America, and selling more vehicles outside the United States than at home don't help much when a) the American market is imploding and b) the rest of the world is following close behind.
Worse, the excesses and perceived excesses of Wall Street, Congress, investors, the Federal Reserve, the Bush administration and homeowners who bought homes they could not afford are inflaming resentments overseas against things American.
That's seldom a boon to sales of consumer products, particularly when the slowdowns deliver such job losses, plant closings and more economic uncertainty as GM's predicament is bringing to places like Sweden, Germany and other parts of Europe.
When GM needs the rest of the world most, a dividend of its savvy expansion into places others are only starting to really exploit, the rest of the world is sputtering. And it doesn't much matter, at least to GM brass angling for more loans from the Treasury, that the slowdown is affecting its rivals, too.
Net-net: GM lost a stunning $30.9 billion for the year, burned another $5.2 billion in cash over the final three months of this year and ended the calendar year with a $45.3 billion debt balance, including the $13.4 billion in bridge loans the automaker already has received from the Treasury.
None of which will bolster the automaker's case to the audience that will matter most to its survival over the next several weeks -- the Obama administration's auto task force, related departments and Republicans in Congress.
The bigger the numbers get, the more they will fuel those (congressional Republicans) arguing for an end to bridge loans and the beginning of a bankruptcy proceeding. So long as the loans stop, to them it doesn't much matter if it's a traditional Chapter 11 (unlikely) or a government-financed process designed to keep GM's massive supply base from collapse.
The biggest obstacles are politics and fear of the unknown effects a GM bankruptcy would have on a weak economy and weaker consumer confidence. In assembling a task force of bureaucrats, academics and the occasional investment banker -- but no auto or manufacturing types -- for his auto task force, President Obama has ensured GM's fate will be subjected to the ponderous meddling of political calculation and special interest lobbying.
How that would expedite a GM workout, instead of complicate and lengthen it, remains to be seen. My guess is that it won't, which is probably the president's intention.
With each passing week and each new financial reckoning -- the Feb. 17 viability plan followed by Thursday's results -- the arc of GM's story is becoming more clear in part because its claims that bankruptcy "is not an option" have all but disappeared.
GM appears less likely to continue wrangling over another set of bridge loans from a quasi-sympathetic White House and more likely to embrace a formal process that mirrors bankruptcy -- minus the "Chapter 11" label.
Regards,
OW
Beginning of the end?: Saab halts all production
Things have gone from bad to worse for General Motors’ Saab brand, with the Swedish automaker being forced to halt all production on Wednesday. Saab reportedly owes the Swedish Customs Agency a “considerable” sum of money for back duties, with the agency blocking all Saab transportation until the full amount is paid.
General Motors Europe's financial health deteriorated sharply during 2008 as the company suffered an adjusted pretax loss of $1.6 billion, compared with $55 million profit in 2007.
Fourth-quarter revenues fell to $6.4 billion from $10.7 billion in the same period in 2007 and the adjusted loss widened to $956 million from a $215 million loss the year before.
http://www.autonews.com/article/20090226/COPY01/302269858
(registration link)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
let's see...GM is run by a multi-year veteran of the auto industry. GM needs help. Ford is run by someone not of the auto industry. Ford needs no help.
Maybe the problem is auto types. In which case it's a wise decision to not have any of them on the task force.
And then they are surprised by the true numbers too late. I know there is no model for this outside of the Great Depression so looking at past recessions is the probable cause. But to forecast we will be heading north of 10MM SAAR for autos this years is akin to the Wizard of Oz predicting the upturn in housing.
Neither of which is going to happen anytime soon. Washing the excesses out of the market will take quite a long time. Autos is no exception. Hope the"Team" faces the new reality.
Regards,
OW
GM lost money in each of its four regions last quarter.
North America had the steepest deficit with an adjusted net loss before taxes of $2.1 billion, almost double the year-earlier total.
Using that same basis, GM Europe lost $956 million, more than four times as much as in the fourth quarter of 2007. The unadjusted European loss was $1.89 billion.
The adjusted figure was $879 million in the GM Asia Pacific region and $154 million in Latin America, Africa and the Middle East. A year ago, both regions were profitable.
GM said it likely will receive a notice from its auditors, who will assess the risk that the automaker might not be able to continue as a "going concern.''
http://www.autonews.com/article/20090226/ANA02/902269977
(registration link)
How can we give this company almost $31 BILLION more in taxpayer money??
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I think if I was Wagoner's replacement CEO and I just kept doing what he's been doing for years, that's about the best plan of attack for running GM into the ground.
I don't think you could do worse than Wagoner even if you tried! (unless your a genius).
So my plan would be to do what Wagoner is doing in order to get GM to fail.
.....not to mention those Invictas and Centurians.
This car is a car.
This is a bedroom.
Regards,
OW
WHOA!!! I think you misconstrue my statements. I was reacting to a comment made By Andre3 that if he were elected CEO of GM, he would run the company into the ground ON PURPOSE!!! That is just plain FOOLISH!!!
Even your comment..... (We want the contracts, leaders and management system swept away, and the plants and business run with new management, and leaders.)..... suggests that you want the company run properly, so that it can make a profit, thus be able to begin to pay the bailout money back.
Even if you believe that this money is already pissed away, never to be seen again, I'm sure that you're hoping they do the right thing.
That's just plain dumb.
As long as we're all here in the I.C.U. with nothing much to do as we anxiously watch GM's heart monitor, I'd like to flash back to the summer of '57. We were all riding the YMCA bus on an hour-long trip to the lake. That is all of us except the director who was following us in his new, white Chevrolet convertible.
How did they do it? How did the big 3 keep us infatuated year after year? I'm guessing it wasn't lean manufacturing, Six Sigma or any other management-speak.
As the government puts Gm and Chrysler on life-support, and the rest of us debate pulling the plug, let's relax and trust that our elected officials will sort this out and let government do what it is intended to do: Make enforceable laws for the good of all. eg. steal my tv and you'll do hard time, steal my paycheck, my pension and my home and you'll get a bonus.
Makes sense. Now we do not need auto experience for the leader of the new Team.... It's now "Birds of a Feather Flock Together".
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
I work for a major manufacturer unconnected to the auto industry other than their workers buy our products. When I joined them almost 13 years ago, they were buying companies almost monthly. I'm sure they had some kind of strategy beyond getting more yield on extra money. As things leaned-out roughly about the time of the last administration change (no connection,) they began selling companies and closing plants. Just as we still can see GM spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave, my company has subscribed to every corporate snake-oil salesman who can get his foot in the door. My only conclusion is that both corporations have a lot of spending money.
Just as I tell my wife as a preamble to domestic dispute, "You just never learned how to be broke."
Shall we get back to GM News for the rest of the weekend? Thanks.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jan2009/db20090121_417607.ht- m
The article's opinion is that while there is a lot of blame to go around, the problem started in the 60's when GM started blurring the differentiations between the different brands, and rebadging. Like many of us have been saying for years.
Now where's my paycheck like Wagoner gets? :P
American buying public considered "Chumbalones" by some auto mfrs.
And that preception was based on the advertising by Olds about the engines. Found it "Rocket" Olds engines in various forms.. Interesting reading here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmobile_V8_engine
There was a lawsuit: http://reviews.ebay.com/GM-Small-Block-350-Engine-Families-A-Primer_W0QQugidZ100- 00000002053999
"Hey, everyone knows the Chevy Small-Block, and the 350 was the most-produced combination of bores and strokes offered. The 350 was introduced in '67 in some Camaros, but not as a "performance" engine. It took until the next model year before Chevrolet trusted it to have "real" power. The Chevy design engine was installed in other division's cars, prompting a lawsuit by Oldsmobile owners in the '70's, who felt cheated that their new Olds had the "inferior" Chevy engine. GM settled the lawsuit, then promptly declared that all GM engines were "Corporate" property, and therefore they could install any engine in any division's cars without buyer recourse. Since that time, all the other division's 350 engines--and in fact almost all the other division's V-8 engines--were discontinued in favor of what were once the "Chevrolet" designs. "
When it came to installation of the Olds 350, the Cutlass Supreme had top priority. Oldsmobile didn't have any engines in the 301/305 CID range, as the 307 wouldn't come out until 1980. They did have the tiny 260 V-8, which was too small to do the job. As a result, the overwhelming majority of Cutlasses had 350's, and that put a strain on the supply. That caused Olds to start putting Chevy 350's in the Delta when they ran low on their own units. I dunno if any Ninety-Eights got the Chevy 350...I think it was mainly the Delta that caused all the stink, but I could be wrong.
To make things worse, California banned Pontiac V-8's in 1977, as they didn't run clean enough. So in applications that would normally have taken a Pontiac 350 or 400, an Olds 350 or 403 was usually inserted, instead. I don't think they ever substituted a Chevy 350 in Catalina or Bonneville of that era, but I could be wrong. Buick LeSabres used Pontiac 301's in 1977, but for California I think they got Chevy 305's. For the Catalina/Bonneville, I think an Olds 350 was just made standard in Cali.
FWIW, in those days, the Olds 350 was a better engine than the Chevy 350. The block was both sturdier and lower-mass than the Chevy engine. Chevy engines tended to eat crankshafts in those days, too. The Pontiac 350/400 were sturdy engines, but just didn't take well to emissions controls, and that made them temperamental. The 301, which came out for 1977, was too lightweight and fragile, and tended to spin bearings, throw rods, and other fun stuff. I don't think Buick engines had any particular faults, but by 1977 they were down to just a 350.
About 10 years ago, I looked at a 1979 Bonneville that a local guy was getting rid of. He was actually going to donate it, but let me drive it first and see if I liked it. It had a Buick 350-2bbl, which was disappointing to me. I guess I just wanted my Pontiac to have a Pontiac heart! I read somewhere later, though, that Pontiac actually quit putting their own 350's in Catalinas and Bonnevilles after 1978, and for '79 they used a Buick 350, and for '80 it was an Olds 350...so if I really had my heart set on a '79 Bonneville, I might not have had any other choice!
I was also kinda disappointed when I drove the car. I figured that with a 350, it would be faster than it was. But it felt slower than my grandmother's '85 LeSabre, which only had a 307, but also had a 4-soeed automatic, and most likely a quicker rear end (2.73:1, compared to most likely a 2.45:1 in this Bonneville)...and compared to the '89 Gran Fury ex-copcar I had, it was a real bow-wow!
Yikes, that's some seriously tall gearing.
I barely remember the Chevy engines in Olds fiasco. I had a buddy that was given a '79 Cutlass Supreme IIRC that had the 260 v8. I think that engine coined the term "nutless Cutlass". That may have been the slowest car I've ever driven. It was sharp though. It also had a limited slip rear dif. like it needed that.. LOL. I will say the 260 v8 seemed reliable, my buddy put nearly 300k on that engine. But I guess a v8 that only puts out like 120hp is harldy stressed. But man was it weak.