The shine is off the new GM for investors
#16
This was discussed at length already. Most here are aware that Ford (and BMW among others) took advantage of a short term lending opportunity from the Feds.
There is a massive difference between a short term loan and the government bailing out GM and Chrysler by injecting massive amounts of cash and taking over stocks, and essentially control of the automakers.
This new information proves, once again, that the government should not have bailed them out and GM and Chrysler should have died.
There is a massive difference between a short term loan and the government bailing out GM and Chrysler by injecting massive amounts of cash and taking over stocks, and essentially control of the automakers.
This new information proves, once again, that the government should not have bailed them out and GM and Chrysler should have died.
#17
Lexus Champion
https://www.clublexus.com/forums/car...ng-crisis.html
https://www.clublexus.com/forums/the...ailout-41.html
https://www.clublexus.com/forums/the...ng-bigger.html
#18
There has been tons of discussion on the bailouts previously just less recently, including the discussion on the short term lending to Ford, BMW and even Toyota. First article is that discussion, the other two are a couple years of discussion on the actual true bailout.
https://www.clublexus.com/forums/car...ng-crisis.html
https://www.clublexus.com/forums/the...ailout-41.html
https://www.clublexus.com/forums/the...ng-bigger.html
https://www.clublexus.com/forums/car...ng-crisis.html
https://www.clublexus.com/forums/the...ailout-41.html
https://www.clublexus.com/forums/the...ng-bigger.html
In any case, I do hope that we get paid back and that they are on their own from now on ...
#19
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 7,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ford had also secured large private loans before the banking crisis occurred. Something GM and Chrysler failed to do. There's no doubt Ford would have been included in the bailouts if not for this.
#20
Lexus Champion
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,673
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No doubt they are different situations, I was just responding to post #11 that said that Mulally did not borrow a dime. What would have happened to Ford if those short term loans from the Fed were not available? Maybe they would have gotten them elsewhere, but ...
In any case, I do hope that we get paid back and that they are on their own from now on ...
In any case, I do hope that we get paid back and that they are on their own from now on ...
I'm more concerned with two things in this whole scenario:
The new chairman of Chrysler (well, relatively new) is Charles Kidder (AKA C. Robert Kidder, a strategy used by other executives to hide who they really are, IMO) who previously was CEO of Duracell (good), CEO of Borden (not good), board member of Merck (bad), and board member of Morgan Stanley (good). He's clearly not the greatest choice to run a company, given the history of failure at Borden and how Merck tanked as it was merging with Schering-Plough. I like foresight in executives, and he doesn't appear to have much.
GMAC, the financing arm of General Motors is now known as Ally Bank and has been under scrutiny since becoming Ally and for questionable practices in order to attain the capitalization that was being required of the banks for the security of investors and the capital that was being put at risk. By offering higher than the normal rates of return, Ally has put itself in a position to pay these rates while using our money to do so. It's a vicious cycle that can function - provided there is no run on Ally where investors pull their funds out. Given the economic situation many people in this country are in, this is a likely situation. Herein lies the problem - Ally promises the high rate of return but puts penalties in place if you remove the money prior to the commitment. While this practice is not new, it can be seen as predatory, which is not something viewed by most as a positive thing.
I know that I won't be putting any money into anything GM related any time soon, and am appalled/offended by the bonuses and corporate pay of the executives of this company.
Big Mack
#21
Pole Position
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lake Country, WI
Posts: 2,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No doubt they are different situations, I was just responding to post #11 that said that Mulally did not borrow a dime. What would have happened to Ford if those short term loans from the Fed were not available? Maybe they would have gotten them elsewhere, but ...
In any case, I do hope that we get paid back and that they are on their own from now on ...
In any case, I do hope that we get paid back and that they are on their own from now on ...
Mulally saw the future, invested money wisely in R&D and plant acquisition/upgrades with his loans, which were strategic to the company's resurgence... NOT to pay off unions and fat cats.There is nothing positive coming from continued incentives and the car you pin your company's future on is $10K over original estimated cost PER vehicle while your paying out bonuses on borrowed money and as mentioned you don't seem to have an executive in any position who has a clue (3 CEOs in what, 15 months???)... oh yeah, there's Barry again....
As CDN said, and I agree cuz I said it at the time... GM and Chrysler shoulda died... give 12-18 more months, they'll be asking for another bailout, NOT loans... crystal enough?
Last edited by rdgdawg; 04-17-11 at 05:03 PM.
#22
Lexus Fanatic
#23
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 7,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As much as I'm against government intervention, I wouldn't have wanted GM gone. Considering the excellent lineup they've put together since, it would be a shame if those cars were absent from the market. And the economic disaster that would have taken place would be devastating.
That said, without the bailout, a proper bankruptcy and reorganization would have resulted in a similar outcome as we have today although bumpier. No way a GM would simply go away.
That said, without the bailout, a proper bankruptcy and reorganization would have resulted in a similar outcome as we have today although bumpier. No way a GM would simply go away.
Last edited by -J-P-L-; 04-17-11 at 07:26 PM.
#24
Lexus Champion
+1. As a car enthusiast and an American, I think it's very important to have GM around. I think most of us would agree to this.
Whether the government should have intervened to the extent that it did is debatable. I'm just glad Rick Wagoner is gone and the company needs to clean house from top to bottom.
Whether the government should have intervened to the extent that it did is debatable. I'm just glad Rick Wagoner is gone and the company needs to clean house from top to bottom.
#25
Lexus Fanatic
I'm just glad Rick Wagoner is gone and the company needs to clean house from top to bottom.
#26
Pole Position
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lake Country, WI
Posts: 2,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
U.S. reportedly planning GM stake sale
tick... tick... tick...
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-...ist=beforebell
It's... uhhh... selling at $29.97 this morning pre-trade...
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-...ist=beforebell
By Sarah Turner GM
SYDNEY (MarketWatch) -- The U.S. government is planning to sell a notable part of its stake in U.S. carmaker General Motors Co. this summer, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday, citing people familiar with the situation. Such a move at a time when GM's shares are hovering around post-float lows would almost certainly mean a loss for U.S. taxpayers which provided $50 billion to rescue the firm in 2009, the report said. The U.S. government would need to sell the 500 million shares it's expected to be left with after the potential sale at $53 a share to break even, the report said. The U.S. government is keen to sever ties with the automaker, according to the report.
SYDNEY (MarketWatch) -- The U.S. government is planning to sell a notable part of its stake in U.S. carmaker General Motors Co. this summer, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday, citing people familiar with the situation. Such a move at a time when GM's shares are hovering around post-float lows would almost certainly mean a loss for U.S. taxpayers which provided $50 billion to rescue the firm in 2009, the report said. The U.S. government would need to sell the 500 million shares it's expected to be left with after the potential sale at $53 a share to break even, the report said. The U.S. government is keen to sever ties with the automaker, according to the report.
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
tick... tick... tick...
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-...ist=beforebell
It's... uhhh... selling at $29.97 this morning pre-trade...
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-...ist=beforebell
It's... uhhh... selling at $29.97 this morning pre-trade...
#28
Lexus Test Driver
iTrader: (1)
Agree... Nardelli bankrupted Chrysler, and he almost destroyed Home Depot... a passion for your company is what works, not clueless business decisions based off spreadsheets.
Look at Palmisano at IBM... meets a customer EVERY day... think ANY of the GM clowns do that????
Look at Palmisano at IBM... meets a customer EVERY day... think ANY of the GM clowns do that????
I wonder how someone who so terribly fails with economics concepts could ever become a CEO?
#29
Pole Position
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lake Country, WI
Posts: 2,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, yes, Nardelli. At the same time Chrysler made some of the worst cars in the American market, he claimed that they were too well-built, lasted too long, and therefore people weren't buying cars, which was hurting his company in the long term.
I wonder how someone who so terribly fails with economics concepts could ever become a CEO?
I wonder how someone who so terribly fails with economics concepts could ever become a CEO?
"Robert Louis Nardelli (born May 17, 1948, in Old Forge, Pennsylvania) was the chairman and chief executive officer of Chrysler. He had earlier served in a similar capacity at The Home Depot from December 2000 to January 2007. Prior to that, Nardelli had risen to become one of the top four executives at General Electric. CNBC named Nardelli as one of the "Worst American CEOs of All Time".
... During Nardelli's tenure, Home Depot stock was essentially steady while competitor Lowe's stock doubled, which along with his $240 million compensation eventually earned the ire of investors.[2] His blunt, critical and autocratic management style turned off employees and the public. Nardelli was notably criticized for cutting back on knowledgeable full-time employees with experience in the trades and replacing them with part-time help with little relevant experience.[3] This move reduced costs, but hurt customer service at a time when Lowe's was making inroads nationwide. While the board strongly stood by him for most of his tenure, questions about his leadership mounted in 2006, and in an ominous portent of the near future, he was the only director present at the annual meeting; he only allowed shareholders to speak for a minute each....
On December 4, 2008, in an appearance on CNN's Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, when asked "So what do you say about the argument that the Japanese, the Germans, Koreans make better cars than the Americans?" Nardelli responded, "We spent about half a billion dollars in the first several months. Our warranty costs are down 29%. It's an interesting comparison because in the hearing today, going around the panel, the majority of the Senators said that citing specific vehicles that they own that they've got 60, 70, 80,000 miles. The comment was you guys are making them too good and therefore, we're not buying vehicles and we're contributing to your problem. That was from the Senators on the committee today."[10] On April 30, 2009 Bob Nardelli announced that he would leave the company as soon as the bankruptcy was over.
On March 17, 2009, Nardelli said that Chrysler Financial would require a second round of loans.[11] On April 21, 2009, it was revealed that a $750 million loan from the government was turned down, on the grounds that it would have required that executive compensation be capped.[12] On April 30, 2009, Chrysler filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and it was announced that Nardelli's replacement (Sergio Marchionne [13]) would likely face a pay cap"