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 Do You Favor A Government Loan To The Detroit 3?
3958 messages, Last post on Oct 02, 2009 at 4:52 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: circlew (Mar 05, 2009 4:58 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: pf_flyer (Mar 05, 2009 1:23 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: ronvpr (Mar 05, 2009 11:45 pm) GM can't even compete with Hyundai HERE, and you figure the solution is to go compete with them on their home turf?
|
|
|
Replying to: cooterbfd (Mar 05, 2009 3:18 pm) It's not about products anymore. That needed to happen years ago. I agree with kdh and gagrice. To state what they said in a different way, GM and Chrysler (and every other auto maker) are simply too big for the market now. And car companies with unions can not adjust size quickly. And GM and Chrysler have 2 large problems that others don't 1) they have a huge number of pensioners getting very good benefits. The other manufacturers don't only having gotten large recently. With GM and Chrysler losing market share they have a much higher number of pensioners to support per car sold then the others. 2) GM and Chrysler went into this financial crisis very weak - not having much reserves. This might be analogous to the person getting laid off who has $1,000 in the bank, when experts tell you have 3-6 months of cash available. SO GM and Chrysler are paying the price for the years of losses they've had.
|
|
|
Replying to: ronvpr (Mar 05, 2009 11:45 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Mar 06, 2009 5:06 am) I agree with the problem of the pensioneers. But to rid themselves of that problem, we talk C11. Problem w/ C11 is, the presumption that car sales tank relative to the rest of the industry. I think that the govenment has, in essence, "put" GM in C11 by giving them the bailout money, only we're not calling it C11, we're calling it a bailout. My scenario would have cost the government little to no money short term, and afforded the automakers time (24-36 months) to restructure to the market that is available to them, w/o having to make debt payments during that time frame. |
|
|
without value and profitability. All of you on this forum know there is none of either left in the D3. Ford is on borrowed time but at least they are fighting a loosing cause which is a lot better than begging for bailouts that will inevitably NOT get paid back. Why keep pumping money into them.? Auction them off in C11, pay the unemployment benefits and retraining programs and right-size the industry. That is the fast way to successfully restructuring the industry. Blow it up and rebuild from scratch. There is far too much excess baggage to evolve into profitability and real corporate value-building in the current company structure. The current corpserations are starting to smell even before they are cremated!  Regards, OW
|
|
|
Replying to: circlew (Mar 07, 2009 6:05 am) Hardly, they've got a real shot. They've got new models that HAVEN'T been delayed (Fiesta, Fusion), they've already shrunk themselves down to the essentials, and they are fixing it so they're NOT dependent on a large market share to be profitable. GM has always worshiped market share to the point where profit became a secondary objective. The Cruze is now delayed, who knows about the Volt, , they talk about paring down brands but so far it's all talk: they're still sitting on 8 brands, and MIGHT reduce that to 6 in the near future (Saab is already in bankruptcy and might be gone, but that was forced on GM rather than GM deciding to do it). And wonder of wonders, GM is still preaching market share, instead of trying to find a way to be profitable regardless of market share. There's a reason why GM's stock has taken a beating and Fords...well, not as much of a beating. Ford is trading at $1.75, while GM is trading at $1.56. Theoretically GM is a larger company with more assets and a higher market cap.
|
|
|
Replying to: bpizzuti (Mar 07, 2009 7:16 am) A new entity must be formed to reinvent the future of our auto manufacturing. No current company is poised to lead that mission. Regards, OW
|
|
|
Replying to: circlew (Mar 07, 2009 5:43 pm) That's the point...its present structure is in flux, and has been even before the recession. It doesn't HAVE a present state because it's been reinventing itself since Mually came on board. Given that, I think they've got a good chance of surviving: they've shown themselves to be a much more flexible, nimble, and adaptable company, and they ARE a leader in some ways. They're leading the way in hybrid technology now, with Fusion spanking Toyota's technology. Their standard ICE engines are looking to leapfrog the competition...the Fiesta looks like it'll get 40 MPG highway, something no one else can match with a pure ICE solution (toyota's little 1.5l doesn't even manage that, I think). Ford's got a lot of success to fall back on, and the public is loving them compared to the Bailout Boys (which sounds like it may soon include Toyota...imagine how a good PR campaign can take advantage of THAT). GM, on the other hand, has spent its entire existence trying to avoid change.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Do You Favor A Government Loan To The Detroit 3?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
