Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views GM News, New Models and Market Share
8237 messages, Last post on Nov 22, 2009 at 8:40 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: circlew (Dec 02, 2008 11:23 am) What's that TV show - Are You as Smart as a 3rd Grader?" ? Well the CEO's weren't even smart enough to say "the dog ate it!" Maybe they should have sent car-show babes in their slinky dresses, if all they were going to do was beg? I know a few Congressmen who would have given them the $.  Anyway I guess they learned to showup with a plan. But a plan in itself is no major accomplishment, as we could write a plan if we put together some of the last few hundred posts. I myself don't see how GM can make money unless you assume sales are going back to 16M units anytime soon. The $25B will not last even a year; Ford wants $9B, leaving $16B for GM and Chrysler. What's GM losing per month $2B? $2.5B maybe in Nov. with a 41% drop in sales? So given that the clock is ticking, who thinks GM can make all the changes necessary in 6-8 months, to make a profit before using all the money they're asking for? My opinion from my math calculations, is that $25B would be needed every 6 months, at least for 2 years, even if GM presents a good plan, and the economy improves to 2007 levels by 2010. But then again why does Chrysler need money when their "parents" Cerberus has money, or could sell them to someone who has money? BTW how many of you have seen that Chrysler is suing Mercedes over the sale. Apparently Cerberus didn't do their homework back when considering to buy Chrysler, and now they want the courts to bail them out of their bad decision.
|
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Dec 02, 2008 12:12 pm) Save our auto industry?? The damage is self-inflicted. Do you really believe people have shunned the Detroit 3 because they are unpatriotic or immoral?? Bad Business Model...bad decisions...greed and high costs.  Regards, OW
|
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Dec 02, 2008 12:24 pm) Hopefully, the government can set up a new Board of Directors to oversee the spend. Regards, OW
|
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Dec 02, 2008 12:12 pm) No! The Big3 went to Congress to beg for $. Congress is politicians. If the Big3 CEO's wanted to discuss business-strategy with auto-industry consultants, then they could have done that in Detroit amongst themselves! Congress's job is not to figure out how to save various companies from failure. It is reluctantly doing that with banks and brokerages, as the repercusions could be extreme. Congress is not here to figure out how GE, IBM, McDonald's, or GM can make $. There are banks, and stock brokerages to fund and loan to decent companies; the federal government should definitely not be involved! Whether it is corporate or family the lesson needs to be that if you screwup continually, you fail! This is not a case of unfair foreign competition. The Big3 made these decisions with the unions on wages and retirement benefits, all on their own. They setup their dealer networks. They designed and built some lousy vehicles OVER DECADES. They are the ones who are still collecting millions in pay and flying corporate jets (they still would be if it wasn't pointed out to them!!) while begging for $. On a bailout or loan or whatever you call it, what you're doing is asking taxpayers - the majority who don't make what a UAW member makes, nor has his pension and retirement benefits, and the millions of Americans who don't have health insurance, to put THEIR money to supporting someone else's BETTER lifestyle. You want the government to take taxes from everyone to support a FAILED system of better-paid people!  This is totally unfair to many people who struggle to make $20/hr, maybe have no vacation and health insurance, and no pension besides a small 401K or Roth that has been decimated; and they are supposed to provide for UAW workers making $70/hr total, or workers who retire at 55 with good $ and health benefits! I'm going to write my Congressmen and tell them to stop wasting their time with these auto bums, and let them go back to Detroit and figure out with their consultants what they're going to do to solve their finances, or sell off the business.
|
|
|
Replying to: circlew (Dec 02, 2008 12:35 pm) Yes, and you know it'll take a few weeks to get the list together and then the notices out, and then they'll pay each worker a lump sum (and is this built into UAW contracts)? Menawhile with closing plants and divisions, sales will be down but the pensioners will still need to be paid THE SAME OR MORE - so this adds cost per car produced. So downsizing actually makes the likelihood of any of the Big3 ever earning a profit WORSE. I don't see how they make a profit, as long as they have all these contracts and commitments. All I can see GM doing with this money is: the current people taking 1 last gulp at the trough. They'll use it to pay off everyone in their organization, while preparing themselves personally to bail.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Dec 02, 2008 12:42 pm) While you're writing them about their job description, suggest they stop setting up failures in the financial system by mandating loans to failure like Dodd, Frank, Waters, et al did with Fannie and Freddie in the 199Xs and then pitching a fit when warnings surfaced and changed were attempted in 2005 and 2006. That's the cause of the current low sales for auto makers. And I don't recall any real plan needed for granting money to AIG--or did that plan include using the bailout money to go on retreats et cetera? I don't think so. And the current monies being given to banks to use for loans is being loaned back to the Fed for treasury notes and bills instead of lending. Lack of a plan there. Remind your congress people what they should be doing _consistently_ instead of trying to grandstand with the US brand automakers. We have to agree on th need for a plan. |
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Dec 02, 2008 12:51 pm) I agree, I'm not picking favorites. It's a bad idea when government gets involved in business, or who banks have to loan to. That's the cause of the current low sales for auto makers. Yes it's a main (but not sole) cause for many businesses hurting. The other main cause is that people around the country spent themselves into more and more debt year after year, which is unsustainable. People are so far in debt, that they can't see a good reason to go spend $25K on a new car that's worth (trade-in) about 50% in 2-3 years. Also contributing to the auto-sales-slowdown is that for a number of years, auto sales were very high, and maybe 16M-17M isn't sustainable given that vehicles tend to last longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Dec 02, 2008 1:00 pm) House sales will be a mess thanks to the politicians (without party-bipartisan blame) who played with the reality market of who can afford a house. If it weren't for the weekly sheriff's listings section the local rag would probably have folded last year. The listing of foreclosures is larger than the whole paper is some days of the week. That's going to take quite a while to work through especially with the economy in Ohio and Michigan which some hope to make worse, if possible.
|
|
|
|
|
I had no idea there were only 30 standalone Pontiac dealers. Guess I need to revisit my comments on what would happen to Pontiac's models if it was phased out. Pontiac is a different case, say several sources in the company. GM has been shrinking its role for years, cajoling Pontiac dealers to sell to Buick-GMC dealers to form one channel. That plan has succeeded, in that there now are fewer than 30 stand-alone Pontiac dealers who would need to be bought out or merged in with a Buick-GMC dealer. Right now, about 80% of Pontiac's sales are made by dealers who also sell Buick and GMC. GM has even been winding down Pontiac's product line. Next year, it will launch the GMC Terrain small SUV; that vehicle was originally supposed to be a Pontiac but was given to GMC instead. More than half of Pontiac's volume comes from the G6 midsize car. But a freshened model has been delayed and may not be built. GMC and Buick could end up getting most of the higher-volume cars sold in the combined showrooms, while Pontiac would sell just a couple of performance cars. At the Detroit Auto Show in January, GM will show a new Buick LaCrosse, which will be built using the same basic platform as the Chevy Malibu, Saturn Aura, and Pontiac G6. Internally, GM product planners are questioning whether they need two midsize cars selling in the same showroom under the Buick and Pontiac names. That's one reason that GM has delayed developing an all-new G6. If GM does get rid of any of its brands, it will be a long, drawn-out process. There may not be any specifics on union concessions this week, either. One high-level GM executive said that anything with the union will have to be negotiated after the meeting in Washington. But options include a wage cut and getting rid of the union JOBS bank, which pays workers 75% of their wages while laid off. The UAW already agreed to cut pay from $28 an hour to $24 an hour at a Mitsubishi plant in Normal, Ill., says Sean McAlinden, chief economist at CAR. |
|
|
|
 http://www.autoblog.com/2008/12/02/by-the-numbers-november-2008-brother-can-you-- spare-a-dime-ed/#comments
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views GM News, New Models and Market Share
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
