Is GM finished?

Yeah it will be tapped. No cash and their credit ain't so good anyway, never mind after chapter eleven. And again, absent a pretty bright light at the end of the tunnel, "You wouldn't buy a used car from this guy".
 
Roadtoad said:
It's been said time and again, Chapter 11 might actually be good for GM. It would force them to confront the very issues they've been avoiding. Once they begin to do that, they might have a shot at survival.

In the meantime, it's time the unions quit protecting laggards, slackers, and slugs. Either the company produces, or they go under. That simple. Anyone not helping that process along at this stage of the game is not your friend, much less your Union Brother.
Click to expand...

Chapter 11 is not an option, apparently, according to the pundits.

You also have the problem of your new car warranty. Would you buy a car that may not have it's warranty honoured?
 
a_unique_person said:
Chapter 11 is not an option, apparently, according to the pundits.

You also have the problem of your new car warranty. Would you buy a car that may not have it's warranty honoured?
Click to expand...


The problem is getting funding (actually a series of extremely large loans) for the reorganization under bankruptcy.

But even without the financial meltdown hindering such a package of loans, without an innovative new management team, a new business plan/model for domestic sales, a ruthless dumping of the UAW and all of their BS, why would anyone lend to this obsolete dinosaur?

Also, if GM, minus the US/UAW divisions, is really doing so well without UAW hinderance, why not spin those divisions off to survive independently as GM-World or something - just keep cutting off and spinning off the viable pieces (like GMAC was spun off) until what is left isn't worth keeping even by the Democrat politicians in the UAW's pockets.
 
Last edited:
balrog666 said:
The problem is getting funding (actually a series of extremely large loans) for the reorganization under bankruptcy.

But even without the financial meltdown hindering such a package of loans, without an innovative new management team, a new business plan/model for domestic sales, a ruthless dumping of the UAW and all of their BS, why would anyone lend to this obsolete dinosaur?

Also, if GM, minus the US/UAW divisions, is really doing so well without UAW hinderance, why not spin those divisions off to survive independently as GM-World or something - just keep cutting off and spinning off the viable pieces (like GMAC was spun off) until what is left isn't worth keeping even by the Democrat politicians in the UAW's pockets.
Click to expand...

One would think that a separate holding company could be created, and the profitable divisions moved under that heading. It would take shareholder approval, but it might make it easier for venture and private capital to be brought into play. (I say "Might" for good reason.)

Key to this, however, is a new business plan, and one hell of a reorganization of the key management team. Micheline Maynard wrote an excellent book about this years ago, chronicling the first crumbling blocks of GM's foundation. One thing she pointed out is that GM could easily shut down another division. Her suggestion, based on her interviews with industry experts and a number of union officials who were far more willing to support GM than one might have expected, would have been Pontiac or Buick, given that no one really needed an Oldsmobile, (ironic, since no one needed an Edsel, either, and that car had been described as "an Oldsmobile sucking a lemon.") Either a Chevy/Pontiac/Cadillac GM, or a Chevy/Buick/Cadillac GM might have a better chance of survival, particularly since you could have then cut a huge number of middle management jobs.

Problem is, no one wants to be the guy making the first cut. Sorry, folks, but the realities remain. And frankly, if GM had wanted UAW support for a lot of what they wanted to do, the LAST thing they should have been doing was rewarding incompetence.

I'll say it again:

a.) A Five Billion Dollar loss, and you pay out huge bonuses to the guys who made that happen.

b.) A CEO who pushes the company into the tank, claiming the market would save them, even as the market is saying "change or die."

c.) Another CEO who forgets to get both the unions and the management behind him, and loses even more money.

d.) A thoroughly stupid business deal with Fiat, ("Finance it again, Tony!"), which costs the company even more millions they cannot afford to lose.

e.) A long term loss promoting strategy to continue to build SUVs and big pickups, even as the evidence is building that gas prices will be going a hell of a lot higher.

Sorry, but if it were up to me, I'd fire everyone in the upper two tiers of GM management, and start looking for people who actually understand that in order for the company to survive, you have to make it profitable. And if there's no profits, there's no bonuses, or for that matter, no salaries. Either make it work, or go hungry.
 
Cognitive dissoanance. Here's the UAW's response to the crisis:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hdFVMQK3UdeVOL-hBHkvhHHyb39wD94FJA200

UAW leader: Workers will make no more concessions

By MARK WILLIAMS – 1 hour ago

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Even as Detroit's Big Three teeter on collapse, United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger said Saturday that workers will not make any more concessions and that getting the automakers back on their feet means figuring out a way to turn around the slumping economy.

"The focus has to be on the economy as a whole as opposed to a UAW contract," Gettelfinger told reporters on a conference call, noting the labor costs now make up 8 percent to 10 percent of the cost of a vehicle.

"We have made dramatic, dramatic changes and the UAW was applauded for that," he said.
Instead, Gettelfinger blamed the problems the auto industry is suffering from on things beyond its control — the housing slump, the credit crunch that has made financing a vehicle tough and the 1.2 million jobs that have been lost in the past year.
Click to expand...

Yes, we should save the auto industry so we can all buy new cars since those losing their homes in the mortgage crisis will need to be living in their cars. Notice how Gettelfinger studiously avoids holding management responsible? Or the decades of the industry being out- competed by foreign car makers?
 
Last edited:
SteveGrenard said:
Cognitive dissoanance. Here's the UAW's response to the crisis:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hdFVMQK3UdeVOL-hBHkvhHHyb39wD94FJA200



Yes, we should save the auto industry so we can all buy new cars since those losing their homes in the mortgage crisis will need to be living in their cars. Notice how Gettelfinger studiously avoids holding management responsible? Or the decades of the industry being out- competed by foreign car makers?
Click to expand...


Cognitive dissonance indeed!

But, of course, the UAW management never have to worry about being unemployed and they never have given a $%%^ about the lives of the actual union members.

I think that UAW management, based on hundreds of millions of dollars of union funds contributed to the Dems, believes that GM will just become the next bloated Amtrak boondoggle and that everything will continue along just as it has for the last four decades for the union. And, as usual, they are wrong.

.
 
just bought $35.00 worth of stock on the off chance that it will not go out of business and the stock may recover eventually. I bought at 3.27 or something like that. All the us car stocks are in the toilet - it could be a great opportunity for folks with a pittance to invest to make some actual money. On the other hand it could be just flushing money down the toilet. I lost around 70 thousand dollars in my retirement over the past few months - very discouraging. I also have a tiny portfolio with buy and hold - lost almost 3/4 of that over the past few months too. Probably not the best time to sell. $5000.00 of the was a college IRA for my son. It's now worth around 1700.00.
 
[sarcasm]
A new Car that will save GM:


Mobile Home 09, because you lost the last one to the bank.
[/sarcasm]
 
drkitten said:
Why? Sunk costs are sunk costs. It costs Detroit exactly the same amount of money to build and staff a new plant in Ohio as it would cost Honda --- unless Detroit can't build and staff as cheaply, which is another bad management decision.
Click to expand...

FAIL. Take a look at the ratio of retirees to working employees GM has and Honda has. It's not as simple as you're making it out to be. It's unfortunate that you represent a large part of the population that really isn't aware of what it costs to operate an empire like GM. Last I checked Chrysler had 3 retirees to every working employee. I'm going out on a lmb and saying GM has at least that many, if not more. That's considerable overhead.
 
drkitten said:
EVERY car that Toyota sold, worldwide, could have been a GM car. Why wasn't it? There's nothing that Toyota did -- except hiring competent people -- that GM couldn't have done. And damn little that Toyota did that GM did do, which is why GM is in such dire straits.
Click to expand...

You've no clue what sanctions the Japanese have on NA products do you?

Again you're wrong and misinformed.
 
3bodyproblem said:


FAIL. Take a look at the ratio of retirees to working employees GM has and Honda has. It's not as simple as you're making it out to be. It's unfortunate that you represent a large part of the population that really isn't aware of what it costs to operate an empire like GM. Last I checked Chrysler had 3 retirees to every working employee. I'm going out on a lmb and saying GM has at least that many, if not more. That's considerable overhead.
Click to expand...

The basic problem of GM is not that they are in a system where companies must take care of the pensions of their employees. Lots of countries have this system. The basic problem is that GM doesn't make cars that people want to buy.
 
DanishDynamite said:
The basic problem of GM is not that they are in a system where companies must take care of the pensions of their employees. Lots of countries have this system. The basic problem is that GM doesn't make cars that people want to buy.
Click to expand...


GM could have legitimately shed that burden at any time in the last thirty years. They chose not to do so. Now they will have to do it anyway.

The basic problem of GM is that when you lose $2300 on every car you build, you can't make that up on volume.

.
 
balrog666 said:
GM could have legitimately shed that burden at any time in the last thirty years. They chose not to do so. Now they will have to do it anyway.

The basic problem of GM is that when you lose $2300 on every car you build, you can't make that up on volume.

.
Click to expand...
Which is what I said.
 
DanishDynamite said:
The basic problem of GM is not that they are in a system where companies must take care of the pensions of their employees. Lots of countries have this system. The basic problem is that GM doesn't make cars that people want to buy.
Click to expand...

We're not really talking about "lots" of countries, we're really talking about 2. And I'm not saying that the number of retirees is the problem, I'm saying it's an issue that faces the NA manufacturers and not the Japanese (to the same extent).

The basic problem is people want to buy big gas guzzlers they can't afford. The hybrid market was until recently a very small part of what people were buying. The basic problem is that the uniformed public was buying Japanese cars based on word of mouth and unsupported reliability claims (I'll throw VW in there as well, while the 1.8l was a great reliable engine, with almost unlimited, cheap aftermarket upgrades, recent models have not been as bullet proof) Mistakes were made by the Big 3, I agree. What I don't agree with is blaming GM for being short sighted, it's a Free Market and the market was short sighted.
 
balrog666 said:
GM could have legitimately shed that burden at any time in the last thirty years. They chose not to do so. Now they will have to do it anyway.

The basic problem of GM is that when you lose $2300 on every car you build, you can't make that up on volume.

.
Click to expand...


They could have? How?
 
3bodyproblem said:
We're not really talking about "lots" of countries, we're really talking about 2. And I'm not saying that the number of retirees is the problem, I'm saying it's an issue that faces the NA manufacturers and not the Japanese (to the same extent).
Click to expand...
Germany does this. Autria does this. I understand Japan does this.
The basic problem is people want to buy big gas guzzlers they can't afford. The hybrid market was until recently a very small part of what people were buying. The basic problem is that the uniformed public was buying Japanese cars based on word of mouth and unsupported reliability claims (I'll throw VW in there as well, while the 1.8l was a great reliable engine, with almost unlimited, cheap aftermarket upgrades, recent models have not been as bullet proof) Mistakes were made by the Big 3, I agree. What I don't agree with is blaming GM for being short sighted, it's a Free Market and the market was short sighted.
Click to expand...
Its a Free Market, and only the big 3 were short sighted. Despite years of fore-warning.
 
What was short sighted, I might add, is the faith people had in the Free Market. They believed that allowing forgeign auto makers access to our economy would strengthen it. People outside of Detroit never realized how dependent the economy was on the automotive manufacturers. How much money did people think they could move out of the country without a total collapse? What did they think would make up this loss?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom