Good GM/Bad GM

>>> That's easy. Declare GM bankrupt. The parts that get bought at auction
>>> by other car companies are the good parts.

>> At this point, I think that's the only logical way to proceed.

> Well, the only companies in a position to buy are foreign, so that means
> that likely only the actual plants that aren't to out of date would be
> bought.

If that *doesn't* happen, the names of GM and Chrysler will go into the
same category as the Lada and Zil (which are still being made in Russia
and for the same reason -- the workers would riot if their jobs went away).

Screw 'em. As long as we subsidize union thuggery, we'll get more of it.

"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
> Andrew Chaplin wrote:
>> "John David Galt" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Comments4u wrote:
>>>> Recent Obama Administration statements indicate a willingness to try to
>>>> save some of GM, but not all of it, an obvious solution for a company
>>>> so
>>>> buried in debt, bad products, obsolete factories, and legacy costs that
>>>> aid
>>>> for the whole would mean subsidies to the end of time. The bad parts
>>>> would
>>>> be liquidated; the good parts would be helped. But that raises the
>>>> question of how to tell the good from the bad, or, perhaps more
>>>> accurately,
>>>> the really bad from the not quite so bad.
>>> That's easy. Declare GM bankrupt. The parts that get bought at auction
>>> by other car companies are the good parts.
>>
>> At this point, I think that's the only logical way to proceed.
>
> Well, the only companies in a position to buy are foreign, so that means
> that likely only the actual plants that aren't to out of date would be
> bought.

What a line. First, if you like Detroit, buy a Ford. Second, if you want
north american made you can buy Ford, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, BMZ, Zenn and
what ever becomes of GM & Chrysler. Goner Motors? People have lots of
choices without GM.

GM isn't the be all end all for north American manufacturing, hasn't been
that way for 5 decades. Get over it, and stop the BS. Most people are too
inteligent to take the union rant and BS seriously.

What will stop is union stupid demands, BS and management so incompetant and
embarasing incompetant managment you wouldn't want to put GM on your resume.
What will stop is
taxpayer pocket picking and corruption. GM is so far in the hole it is done
for. In fact, it would be humane just to get GM into chapter 11 tomorrow
and get it over with.

And it isn't like GM does not use foreign parts. In fact many with Asian
names have more north american content than th Detroit models.

And what does GM pay for these days? It isn't bond holders or other debt
holders. It isn't pensions, or taxes. Even the government does the
warranty. It sure isn't suppliers, taxpayers buy the parts. Makes one
wonder what GM is good for besides robbing wealth from non-auto taxpayers.

"Clams Canino" > wrote in message

> That said, I'd make Corvette a separate division. They rarely said
Chevrolet
> on them anyway.... who'd really care?

Appears I'm not that far off. Corvette is already marketed that way in
Europe and Japan.

-W

Comments4u wrote:
> Recent Obama Administration statements indicate a willingness to try to
> save some of GM, but not all of it, an obvious solution for a company so
> buried in debt, bad products, obsolete factories, and legacy costs that aid
> for the whole would mean subsidies to the end of time. The bad parts would
> be liquidated; the good parts would be helped. But that raises the
> question of how to tell the good from the bad, or, perhaps more accurately,
> the really bad from the not quite so bad.
>
> Saturn is an obvious liquidation target. The brand has lost money every
> year it has existed. Its original business model - creating a car unique
> in content - was doomed from the beginning, as the importance of parts
> commonality was recognized by American manufacturers in the 20s and by
> Asian manufacturers in the 70s. It could be speculated that Saturn was,
> philosophically, a British project as they never learned this lesson, even
> to the point that during British Leyland's last gasp in the 80s, Jaguars,
> Rovers, Triumphs, and MGs used different shades of white paint.
>
> Clearly Hummer has most of the same problems as Saturn. While some may
> want to retain Hummer due to its military applications, high volume sales
> to the military would require a need to replace current equipment. And
> that would occur only if existing equipment were destroyed in constant,
> long term, no victory in sight wars, something President Obama, unlike his
> predecessor, seems interested in avoiding.
>
> Pontiac and Buick are obviously finished. Once having sufficient volume to
> support single marque dealerships, GM forced its Buick and Pontiac dealers
> to consolidate and, even then, volume was so insufficient it threw GMC into
> the mix.
>
> That leaves Chevrolet and Cadillac as the "least bad". Can they survive?
>
> Interestingly, both are highly truck oriented brands, and, despite obvious
> consumer preferences, some members of Congress think GM's problems are due
> to building trucks. Of course, letting Chevrolet and Cadillac continue to
> build what they know how to build would put them at risk for non compliance
> with CAFE. It would take a nearly unprecedented case of logical thinking
> on the part of Congress to realize Chevrolet and Cadillac only have a
> chance to survive it they do what they're better at, building trucks and
> large cars, and that market manipulation is generally a bad idea.
>
> So what is to become of the "Bad GM"? Brands that don't sell are worth
> nothing. Plants and equipment for an industry that has twice the capacity
> it needs are essentially scrap. The creditors may find that selling the
> remnants costs more than can be recovered.
>
> That being the case, the "Good GM" should keep everything required to
> produce trucks and large cars, rights to parts for discontinued brands
> (Chevrolet and Cadillac can offer parts and service for all models built in
> the last few years) and all trademarks. That way, the "Good GM" can almost
> break even for a few years, until Toyota and Nissan learn how to build
> large pickups that do more than feed the owner's ego while he load the bed
> with bags of groceries.
>
> Then after liquidating Chevrolet and Cadillac, the "Good GM" can become a
> one employee company selling GTO and Camaro T Shirts on Cafe Press. Rick
> Waggoner, don't cancel your internet service just yet. There's a future
> work from home job for you at the new "Good GM".


start rant:

Hey guys, wake up! It's not the auditors --
they did OK! It's everyone who kept GM in their
portfolio. (and a few stock specialists on Wall
Street who GM subsidized to 'keep the ball
pumped up.')

No need to keep Wagoner around to sell T-shirts.
Easiest path is for Obama to license exclusive
rights to all current and prior GM Marques to
Brian France. Annual revenues will never cover
the bail outs to GM but the presence of GM brand
names on funny cars offers some nostalgia.

Seriously, there was no Good GM and no Bad GM.
The whole business was obviously rotten to the
core at the end of 2007 (three quarters of
negative cash flow is a pretty good indicator).
That was a matter of public record. Anyone
who blames the auditors is plain stupid! The
-- the books and 10k's told the truth.

Globally, the company frittered away 30 billion
in assets in just over a year.

Following isn't Business 101: Anyone who blames
the bean counters misses the points--this was
lousy marketing and a total lack of product
planning. Bean counters don't determine
product. Bean counters may support funding of
good investment and marketing campaigns. Bean
counters may discourage business paths that
don't have a sound marketing plan. GM got in
trouble by thinking that what was profitable in
the past would also be profitable in the future.
Their ability to forecast market was horrid.
Their ability to respond to regulatory reform stank.

In the spring of 2007, the head of Buick called
a press conference and announced that he would
rather put $ 500 into product rather than
putting $ 500 into a rebate. (Hmmm, must have
borrowed that idea from Toyota and Honda.) By
the fall of 2007 GM was still in the rebate
business.

By mid-2008 the book value was negative. IIRC,
from High School Accounting, that's the
definition of Bankruptcy. GM reported a
negative book value last year, the auditors
signed off on it and the media reported it!

The "best and brightest" of Wall Street, the
mutual fund managers and above all, Rick Wagoner
either railed to realize this, were smoking
funny tobaccy or failed Bus 101 and every course
after that.

The Bush gang didn't get it. (I have been a
registered Republican for over 50 years!)

GW's biggest failing was an inability to ask the
right questions. Question #1: "Why is the
taxpayer being asked to dump money into a
bankrupt company?" Question #2: Why wasn't I
told about this when the company was playing
with insolvency in 2006 and 2007 ?" It goes
along with, "Brownie, you're doing a great job."

While GW surrounded himself with some good
church goers, those folks must have been reading
their prayer books instead of the financials
from GM. Rule ONE: If it's bankrupt and the
cash flow is negative, it's probably a black
hole. Prayer isn't going to help! A pat on the
back to a good-old-boy might isn't much better.

They failed to read the newspaper-- when they
made the first "gift" (aka loan) to GM of
six-billion, the Market Cap for the whole
shebang was only four-billion.

Assuming that the Bush administration was
seriously interested in a turn-around, they
should have made a tender offer of four-billion
for all the stock then disposed of the BOD and
the CEO. Instead they gave Wagoner a golden
handshake, a pat on the back and 90 days to do
better.

It took another six months for Washington to
read GM's balance sheet and let Rick Wagoner
know that the company was really BK.

Finally, someone in the White House explained
the facts of business to Wagoner. The man
stayed in denial. He was told to go.

I find it absolutely amazing that it took a
crowd of social-welfare specialists to do what,
bankers, active business people and
self-professed capitalists failed to do.

I have no qualms about putting down a horse with
a broken leg or humanely disposing of my old
hound. GM was allowed to become so filled with
gangrene that no amount of surgical brilliance
can bring it back. There will be no heroes.

Face it folks.

One question to ponder, for all those who say,
"just buy Toyota stock, it's an 'automatic'."

Is the brand proliferation and badge car
syndrome that's infecting Toyota-Lexus-Scion
going to lead it down the same path?

--
pj

"me" > wrote in message
...

>
> But, that said, GM has been way too ignorant for way too long, as has
> Ford. GM bought into Saab, then purchased it in full, long ago. Saab
> has had rock solid 4 cyl turbos for many years. What's the first thing
> GM does with Saab? They stuff an anemic NA V6 in them with a 30K
> timing belt changes.
>

I never kept up with the whole Saab thing - what motor did they stuff in
that had a timing belt?

--

-Mike-

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:21:17 -0400, Nate Nagel >
wrote:


>Well, the only companies in a position to buy are foreign, so that means
>that likely only the actual plants that aren't to out of date would be
>bought.


Which one would that be?

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 09:43:57 +0100, Peter Hill
> wrote:


>the size. BMW and Ford experience of turbo's is coloured by them
>making turbo petrol engines back when turbo's were big, giving top end
>power with lots of lag and nothing in the mid range. It's taken them
>20 years to wise up.

Wise up to what?

The only reason Europe has these technical "marvels" is because
government market manipulation through taxes makes expensive tech
less expensive than just making the engine a bit bigger.

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:18:19 -0400, "R Mach" >
wrote:

>But the death of the British sports cars in the 1970's ?
>The British cars did not go to electronic fuel injection like the German
>cars did. So with new pollution control requirements the British cars got
>poor fuel mileage and poor performance.
>
>And the American car makers did not even notice the problem of lacking
>electronic fuel injection and they continued on without it...


The supposedly smart Germans put fuel injection on expensive cars
while continuing on with points ignition.

The dumb Americans put on electronic ignition and then electronic
engine controls on cheap cars and passed on fuel injection for a
while.

The Japanese kept carbs, points ignition, and even resisted catalytic
converters, and won the sales war.

So much for tech!

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:21:17 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:

> Andrew Chaplin wrote:
>> "John David Galt" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Comments4u wrote:
>>>> Recent Obama Administration statements indicate a willingness to try to
>>>> save some of GM, but not all of it, an obvious solution for a company so
>>>> buried in debt, bad products, obsolete factories, and legacy costs that aid
>>>> for the whole would mean subsidies to the end of time. The bad parts would
>>>> be liquidated; the good parts would be helped. But that raises the
>>>> question of how to tell the good from the bad, or, perhaps more accurately,
>>>> the really bad from the not quite so bad.
>>> That's easy. Declare GM bankrupt. The parts that get bought at auction
>>> by other car companies are the good parts.
>>
>> At this point, I think that's the only logical way to proceed.
>
> Well, the only companies in a position to buy are foreign, so that means
> that likely only the actual plants that aren't to out of date would be
> bought.
>
> nate

I think we should all chip in and buy Saturn.

edward ohare wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:21:17 -0400, Nate Nagel >
> wrote:
>
>
>> Well, the only companies in a position to buy are foreign, so that means
>> that likely only the actual plants that aren't to out of date would be
>> bought.
>
>
> Which one would that be?
>

Haven't a clue, I'm just saying, the only appeal would be to someone
looking to expand their manufacturing base, I bet all the corporate
offices, R&D facilities, etc. would be hard to sell.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel