OT: GM headed for bankruptcy….again August 2012

[paramount]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/08/15/general-motors-is-headed-for-bankruptcy-again/

President Obama is proud of his bailout of General Motors. That’s good, because, if he wins a second term, he is probably going to have to bail GM out again. The company is once again losing market share, and it seems unable to develop products that are truly competitive in the U.S. market.

Right now, the federal government owns 500,000,000 shares of GM, or about 26% of the company. It would need to get about $53.00/share for these to break even on the bailout, but the stock closed at only $20.21/share on Tuesday. This left the government holding $10.1 billion worth of stock, and sitting on an unrealized loss of $16.4 billion.

Right now, the government’s GM stock is worth about 39% less than it was on November 17, 2010, when the company went public at $33.00/share. However, during the intervening time, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen by almost 20%, so GM shares have lost 49% of their value relative to the Dow.

It’s doubtful that the Obama administration would attempt to sell off the government’s massive position in GM while the stock price is falling. It would be too embarrassing politically. Accordingly, if GM shares continue to decline, it is likely that Obama would ride the stock down to zero.

[spdrun]

Shame, because their cars have become somewhat decent at this point. Mainly thanks to Opel and Holden engineering, but regardless…

And Forbes should shut their pie-holes about things they don’t know about. Reading their comparo with the Passat, longer wheelbase has some drawbacks. It can be detrimental to handling. Not to mention that long-wheelbase cars, especially front-drivers with limited steering lock, tend to have the turning circle of the good ship Edmund Fitzgerald. This makes driving them in urban areas painful.

Note that the REAL Passat (i.e. the Euro version) has a much shorter wheelbase than the obesified and gimped (what, no independent rear suspension, only a twist-beam!) US model.

[paramount]

[quote=spdrun] Not to mention that long-wheelbase cars, especially front-drivers with limited steering lock, tend to have the turning circle of the good ship Edmund Fitzgerald. This makes driving them in urban areas painful.

[/quote]

True.

I have an older long wheelbase Saturn which has a RIDICULOUSLY awful turning radius.

[svelte]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Talk about a biased article! Let’s take a look at how a few facts were packaged together to make wrong assumptions:

For the first 7 months of 2012, their market share was 18.0%, down from 20.0% for the same period in 2011.

Sounds bad, doesn’t it? Nowhere do they mention that GM market share was artificially high in 2011 due to the Japanese earthquake! That’s right, Japanese car sales were way off (Toyota down 22%, Honda down 28%) due to lack of supply. That would inflate the market share of the other brands, wouldn’t it? For shame, Forbes. Present things in a fair manner please.

Because the D-Segment is the highest volume single vehicle class in the U.S., and the U.S. is GM’s home market, it is difficult to imagine how GM could survive long term unless it can profitably develop, manufacture, and market a vehicle that can hold its own in the D-Segment.

Uh, wait. You mean a car company can’t survive unless it competes in every category? Someone needs to explain that to Porsche.

This article breezes on by the fact that every car company has strengths and weaknesses. GM is known for trucks mostly and that’s where it generates it’s sales. It is about to introduce new full size trucks, actually, so let’s watch their market share AFTER that happens.

Right now, the government’s GM stock is worth about 39% less than it was on November 17, 2010, when the company went public at $33.00/share. However, during the intervening time, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen by almost 20%, so GM shares have lost 49% of their value relative to the Dow.

It would be more fair to compare it to it’s competitors since Nov 2010,, wouldn’t it? Let’s take a look.
Honda 11/2010: $38/share
Honda today: $33/share

Ford 11/2010: $16/share
Ford today: $9/share

Toyota 11/2010: $77/share
Toyota today: $82/share

Not quite the same picture the Forbes article painted now, is it?

Finally, this article focuses on nothing but the Malibu – it bases almost all conclusions on that! It’s a poor article based on limited information taken out of context, with limited discussion on a single model!

Yeah, the Malibu is gonna have a lot of competition. What else is new?

[The-Shoveler]

I think GM and Ford in particular are tied to the housing industry (light Truck sales are their bread and butter).

If and when we get a real construction boom going I think domestic auto makers will pick up as well.

[livinincali]

I don’t see anything in GMs balance sheet or earnings statements that suggest on coming bankruptcy right now, but things can change pretty quickly. Of course even if they do go bankrupt again, government will bail them out.

[spdrun]

Speaking of D-segment cars, GM will be importing the RWD Caprice (Holden) PPV as a civilian model on a limited basis inside of a year, and is coming out with a full-production US-produced version of same in 2014. It may be technically “full-sized”, but a Crown Vic or old Caprice it is not.

If it eventually comes out with a hybrid or diesel powertrain, there may be hope for GM even in that segment 🙂

[enron_by_the_sea]

I must say after glancing at balance sheet and cash flow statement of GM that I don’t see how GM can go bankrupt again like this article alleges – barring a severe downturn in the economy.

In fact, this article talks mostly about troubles of GM in “D” car segments. It absolutely does not lay out any argument about how those troubles will translate into bankruptcy in the next few years. There is no mention about how much GM owes to whom and on what schedule or how its cashflow will get impacted due to its trouble in “D-segment” etc. Those are absolutely the minimum requirements for any half serious bankruptcy-101 type of argument.

So it appears that the author uses word “bankruptcy” mainly just sensationalize his otherwise bland article…

[briansd1]

Sounds unpatriotic and treasonous to wish for the bankruptcy of an American industrial icon.

[spdrun]

Fortunately, patriotism isn’t mandatory in the US, and treason is very narrowly defined 🙂

I’m not sure whom you’re referring to as far as wishing for bankruptcy.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=svelte]It’s a poor article based on limited information taken out of context, with limited discussion on a single model![/quote] Excellent post Svelte!

I think often journalists are desperate to add urgency to something to make it look like news. I see that all the time. Also, some of the writers are probably very young…

[briansd1]

[quote=spdrun]
I’m not sure whom you’re referring to as far as wishing for bankruptcy.[/quote]

The naysayers who don’t believe in American industry. They must not love America.

I’m just being sarcastic here, you know.

[Author]

Posts