Comments on: GM announces $15.5 billion net loss worldwide in second quarter

By: inline6

inline6 — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 18:20:11 +0000

It’s also worth noting that, while GM is posting a $15B loss this quarter, if you dive into the figures, you find one that’s VERY important:

Net changing in operating funds, billions (3.6). GM’s only down $3.6B in working capital. It’s got $20B+ left, and access to $26B more. GM isn’t going anywhere.

By: inline6

inline6 — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 18:07:30 +0000

Thanks jayjc, that’s might neighborly of you…

I should mention that the Edge may be the best-selling single crossover, the HHR is giving it a run for its money. For the last two months, the HHR has been outselling the Edge 22,664 to 18,502. Now, the Edge had a far enough lead on the HHR for the model year (which ends Aug. 31) to where it’ll outsell the HHR overall, but we’ll see if the HHR can snatch the title by the time CY’08 is up on Dec. 31.

Also, once again, the Cobalt outsold the Focus, widening the sales gap between the two cars even further.
July Cobalt sales: 16,410. Overall MY’08 Sales: 198,179
July Focus sales: 15,200. Overal MY’08 Sales: 188,704

Let’s see if ipustule posts now…

By: 400horseSS

400horseSS — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:38:39 +0000

For all of you dickweeds who blame the Union, do you realize if they paid us $0 last year they still wouldn’t have made a profit.

By: jayjc08

jayjc08 — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 16:57:15 +0000

SERSteve- Why would they want to compete in a market that sells maybe a fourth as much as say… the full-size sedan market? Everybody complains that they stopped competing in the sub-compact market… but if you want to get technical, it was due to the consumer. What can I say, most Americans don’t want something as small as the Yaris unless it has some actual attitude/niche value (like the MINI).

By: DeansterTJ

DeansterTJ — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 15:32:22 +0000

KTULU SHUT THE **** UP YOU ILLITERATE ASSHOLE

By: SERSteve

SERSteve — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 08:00:04 +0000

This is kind of scary, how long can they keep losing this kind of money? I think many of the individual comments on this topic are valid. One thing the big 3 did do wrong was stop trying to compete in every market. they more or less gave up on the small and mid-size markets pretty much handing them over to the foriegn brands. This is what bit them in the butt. Toyota, Honda, and to a lesser extent Nissan have always had dependable, desireable, fuel efficient cars. So when gas got expensive, consumers really had no choice but to got to foriegn brands. Poor Chrysler, took the Hemi route which seemed “Odd” when gas was 2.89 a gallon and just seems plain stupid at 4.00 a gallon. Sadly the american buyer is a little at fault as well, We love or Truck, SUV’s and Sports cars.

Like someone said: we are now seeing what GM and Ford were working on 3 or 4 years ago, most of it would have been great at $2.89 a gallon. now they have to scramble to get relevant products to market the most desireable (from and efficiency standpoint) are still 2 to 3 years away. Because GM and Ford have strong European brands they will probably survive, Chrysler is another story, they don’t seem to have anything in the pipeline and they seem to have a VERY weak presence outside the US. With a line up that is mostly trucks, Van’s , SUV’s and inefficient cars, it seems like they will HAVE to partner with someone to bring relevant products to market and do it quickly…

The Unions and Executives really need to take a hard look at what they want from these companies. There will be no jobs for any of them if these companies fail. the unions aren’t to blame (IMO) but they must be realistic GM, Ford and Chrysler can’t compete using US workers if the unions price themselves out of the market, or drive these companies into the ground with strikes and walk outs. Everybody is going to have to give up something or nobody will have work.

By: buytheredcar

buytheredcar — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 06:29:58 +0000

GMs 50 year slump continues!

By: beatusmongous

beatusmongous — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 06:07:06 +0000

Jaycj08, I see the same thing you see, and I’m very excited for what is to come. The future looks good to me.

By: sprockkets

sprockkets — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 02:36:46 +0000

What are you saying ihustle? GM doesn’t make anything themselves anymore, save for trucks. They have Opel and Holden do all their work for them now. Why doesn’t GM just die and have Opel and Holden sell directly without the pathetic middle man GM is?

Sarcasm aside, Bob is the only reason why GM is growing a pair of balls with their various offerings. Perhaps too late to turn around buyer’s perception, but at least they are going down trying.

By: jayjc08

jayjc08 — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 01:41:32 +0000

I’m so tired of making this point, and it only gets worse and worse. Don’t you think they’ve learned their lesson by now? Seriously, how many of you believe that GM, Ford and Chrysler haven’t learned their “lesson” by now. And aside from that cra.p, what lesson would that be? They’ve been making vehicles that are in high demand, that people want. It’s unfortunate that they turned sour in the 70’s and 80’s and because of regulations they decided to go bitter, instead of optimistic. But I’m not seeing the same now. At the current moment, I’m seeing some of the best vehicles coming out of GM, and some really great ones coming from Ford. I’d like to see the same from Chrysler, but this has happened time and time again for them. Do I think Chrysler will survive? Yes, if the troops come back and the funding comes into their pockets. And yet, I can see Chrysler getting into the very same situation in years to come.

I can’t believe some of you are still he.ll bent on trying to “teach a lesson” to the Big Three. If you had been my dean or parents, I would have had my lips inflated to 100 psi and limbs detached.

inline6- I think your one of the smartest posters on this site. You come up with very factual posts daily, and your pretty spot on about most points.

ihustle- Ford doesn’t sell more CUV’s, however the Edge is the best selling CUV at the moment. GM has many more CUVs that added together, beat Ford’s overall CUV sales. Technically, with all F-series sales and the few Lincoln truck sales added together, they only beat Chevrolet’s sales marginally. If you were to say the F-series is better than Silverado, it is, but not by much. And if you had said Ford is in better shape than GM, I would also agree with you, but overall Ford is much smaller and has a smaller overall profit in the first place.

By: ihustle

ihustle — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:59:42 +0000

inline your dumb and your inteligence plumits with each post. Ford sells more trucks, sports cars, vans, and cuv. GM has more sales they OWN twice as many companys dumb 2$$!

By: inline6

inline6 — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:33:53 +0000

HRR,
1) GM will sell 3.25 million cars in the US this year. Lutz and Wagoner’s bonuses are at sum total of, what, 10 million? That’s $3.08/car. So why don’t you sit down and shut up? Because GM is paying $5 BILLION in employee healthcare.
2) The 4cyl Malibu gets BETTER mileage than the I4 Camry and Accord. And the V6 Malibu matches the V6 Camry and Accord in fuel economy.
3) If you’re going to fault GM for not having a vehicle over 40mpg, go ahead and fault everyone but Honda and Toyota.
4) Tell me this, which ends up saving more gas? GM improving Silverado gas mileage by 2mpg (It’s already got the best mileage in its class), or Toyota bringing Prius mileage up to 60mpg?
5) ihustle, we’ve already had this conversation, and I owned you at it. GM leads a few classes in sales, actually. And they own Ford’s ass in almost all but two of them (full-size vans and pony cars). GM sells twice the vehicles Ford does. So sit down and shut up, too.

By: SickofGarbageMotors

SickofGarbageMotors — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:24:37 +0000

I’d paint Ford in better shape than GM right now for the fact that they already did some much needed shedding of LR and Jaguar. GM is still stuck peddling 8 brands here in the states, probably 60% more than they should be. Ford is getting leaner and concentrating on profit over volume. Good for them I say.

By: ihustle

ihustle — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:15:27 +0000

*Xyunya* You are totally biast against ford. That is one thing that is made more and more evident everytime you post. It has been no secret in this lln community. Ford is in far better shape then gm when it comes to capital. I’d rather own 6 losers then 12!!!! There is not one profitable company in GM’s whole line up. I understand all american automobile companys are struggling considering americas slumping economy. At least ford is dominating europe. GM dominates nothing. They have not one best seller in there whole line up. There future vehicles look quite dissapointing, compared to fiesta/verve and the brand new taurus. European focus should be arriving for the 2011 season. What do they have the volt and cruse? Both vehicles are a joke, and quite frankly a mockery of how poorly GM’s new car concepts are.

By: HemiRoadRunner

HemiRoadRunner — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:12:36 +0000

19, I meant 29. What difference would it make anyway, someone would try to prove me wrong.

By: HemiRoadRunner

HemiRoadRunner — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:11:47 +0000

^^^ Well thank you for telling me how wrong I am and how right you are. $1500 for every vhicle for healthcare? Look at it as $1500 for every vehicle for the RIDICULOUS bonuses and extra’s the top management recieves, not the average working guy. And a 19 mpg malibu SUCKS for fuel economy, I’m talking about extraordinary vehicles that exceed 40mpg.

By: inline6

inline6 — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:59:12 +0000

HRR,
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Union healthcare costs alone add $1500 to the bottom line of EVERY CAR GM builds. That’s $1500 that can’t go to R&D, engineering, or more standard features and still be able to keep the price the same as the competition’s. And this is just HEALTHCARE, not including higher union wages and other benefits. So GM either has to de-content its vehicles by $1500 to get the same amount of profit, or they have to price their vehicles $1500 higher than the competition, while offering the same stuff. These are issues the foreign competition don’t face because no one cares where they build their plants.
You’re also wrong about the fuel economy of GM’s vehicles. GM isn’t Honda, but GM is in about twice the market segments Honda’s in, and sells more cars in all of them. And GM vehicles are consistently average, above average, or at the top of each vehicle class they enter.

xyunya,
That’s what I mean. Nissan needed a Renault takeover to right the ship, get a whole new guy in, and give Nissan greater economies of scale to base new vehicles off of. GM doesn’t really have that luxury. So it makes sense that it’s taking Wagoner and Lutz more time to turn around a company that’s more than triple the size of Ghosn’s.
Also, how have they NOT made things better at GM? EVERY SINGLE VEHICLE GM makes now is far better than its predecessor, and far more competitive in its respective market. More GM vehicles are recommended than ever by CR. GM vehicles are now at or near the top of every reliability and quality survey at JD Power and Strategic Vision. That wasn’t happening before Lutz and Wagoner, either. GM interiors have vastly improved. GM vehicle fuel economy is way up.
It almost seems like people expected GM to be a lean, trim company like Toyota in the first 6 months of Lutz’s tenure. It takes 3-5 years to get a vehicle from paper to production. And GM is showing that Lutz and Wagoner weren’t asleep 3-4 years ago. The vehicles they’ve been releasing in the last 3 years have been really, really good. Excellent, in fact. Imagine how good the vehicles they’re working on now (2011, 2012, 2013) will be.

By: xyunya

xyunya — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:18:35 +0000

1. Wagoner has been with GM since his college graduation. He’ve been at the helm for what 8-10 years? He is the one who brought in Lutz to “help” about 5-6 years ago. Dynamic duo is not cutting it. What makes anyone think that if they did not make it any better during their tenure they need more time?
2. inline6, I think you slightly rewriting history. Renault already took Nissan over (or bought 36% of its shares at dumpster) and after that installed Ghosn as overseer. Japanese company would not allow “round eye” to run it if it would not be owned by one.
3. ihustle, considering GM size and capitalization (let me explain in terms you might comprehend: GM more then twice bigger then Ford) it is not better or worse then Ford. Both companies are run by nincompoops and can’t get out of the funk they dug themselves in. In GM favor is the fact that Fords corporate governance and ownership are in much worse shape ( I am sure you would not understand the principles no matter how much I try to explain), if it matters during bankruptcies.

By: ktulu

ktulu — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:14:02 +0000

Sucks 2 B the General.

I thought they were making $ outsoide the USA

GM needs 2 evengelize

Wal Mart sucks

Gas is $4.03 here

the war in Iraq doesn’r really lose $ so much as throuw it away.

we need unions

cutting fleet sals is short-term pain, but will maje GM stronger.

I could run the company better.

GM is not building crap, but isnb’t moving fast enuff in the aresthetics dept. & thay R making 2 many lambdas, making the 4runner or whatever look fresh in comparispon. They beed 2 sex up da product line

By: HemiRoadRunner

HemiRoadRunner — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:29:23 +0000

The unions have NOTHING to do with GM’s condition. GM is building crap, not crap in terms of quality, but crap in terms of unattractive, useless, or non-economical cars. The unions agree to build what management, R&D, and marketing decides on making, and the UAW does a good job at building these pos’s because that’s their job.

By: ihustle

ihustle — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:26:53 +0000

Ohh i thought Ford was in worse shape then GM? Come on xyunya, guess your opinions were wrong. But what else is new right hahaha.

By: shaver

shaver — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:16:24 +0000

x: You have been played.

By: inline6

inline6 — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:56:32 +0000

Sorry folks, the $10-15mil each the top execs make is pittance compared to what they lost. It costs them that much to study a new paint color on one car.

Wagoner’s salary is 0.0993% of what GM lost this last quarter. All of this Wagoner/Lutz-bashing has got me wondering…what mistakes do you think they’re making? Haven’t GM’s cars and trucks been improving vastly? Haven’t they made the tough decision to rely on the retail market instead of flogging 1.5 million units a year to daily rental just to keep the plants open? You guys are morons if you think you could run the company better.

Ghosn may have only taken 5 years to right Nissan’s ship, but that involved a Renault takeover…and even at that, the sheer size of even the merged pair pales in comparison to GM’s size and scope. Wagoner and Lutz are righting the ship. But it takes time and money.

By: johnnycanuck

johnnycanuck — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:36:15 +0000

If Wagoner or Lutz were to suddenly take a hike it would do more harm than good. Other than providing a convenient scapegoat, the ripples throughout Detroit and the investment community would gain in magnitude to the point where the resulting wave of instability really could put the whole industry in jeopardy. GM’s finance department has gone out of their way to lump all the bad news into one basket. We can only hope they’ve gotten all the stinky stuff out of the corporate fridge.

By: 400horseSS

400horseSS — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:23:50 +0000

Thats right when all else fails blame the union, not managements ability to give million dollar bonuses and raises to execs when profits take a sh*t, or how they wouldn’t adapt to the changing market, blame me the worker who gave back too much on the last 2 contracts.

By: xyunya

xyunya — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:11:01 +0000

master_chen, so it is UAW, not economy or oil prices? I was wondering whodonit myself. Of course, not the corner office.

By: xyunya

xyunya — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:06:55 +0000

^^^^ I am sure Foreign Service will be your best customer

By: master_chen

master_chen — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:06:52 +0000

The UAW and similar unions are killing America’s automobile industries. Ever heard of don’t bite the hand that feeds you? Well, in the unions’ case, they are not only biting, they are chopping it off and grinding it into hamburger meat. Shooting yourself in the foot will not make your headache feel any better. Ya know, America was and still is a great country, but if the people who live in this country continue to **** up, there won’t be much left. God Bless…

By: 04focus

04focus — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:59:44 +0000

xyunya, in that case I have some $65 billion elephant repellent I’d like to sell you.

By: xyunya

xyunya — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:41:09 +0000

shaver, war in Iraq costs a lot of money and a lot of lifes. The fact that US was not attacked since 2001 costs more in my mind. It took “friendlies” to only 8 years from the first try (February 26 1993) to 9/11 to demolish WTC. They got craftier and stronger. Any military book you’ll ever open past the Prologue will state that offense is the best defense. We are fighting war on their turf and that is better then on ours. Please don’t confuse the costs.

By: shaver

shaver — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:30:18 +0000

Damn thats a lot of money too lose in 90 days, thats $172,222,220.00 a day. Only the war in Iraq loses more money then that!!!

By: RaineMan

RaineMan — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:12:54 +0000

If the government bails them out… they won’t have learned a thing.

By: SickofGarbageMotors

SickofGarbageMotors — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:01:32 +0000

Two thumbsup xyunya. Excellent points.

By: beatusmongous

beatusmongous — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:31:15 +0000

$3.49, HRR? Wow, that’s cheap! $3.99 is the cheapest in my area, but it’s clear on the other side of town. I filled up last night, and it was $4.13.

I really don’t think the government should bail them out other than helping with the 401Ks and such. Help those that have put their sweat and time into the company, but that’s about it.

By: xyunya

xyunya — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:59:16 +0000

Why don’t we read about salary/bonus adjustments for higher ups? How do you defend 7.8B loss at Ford and twice as much at GM and not a peep from the either board? When Alcatel/Lucent announced huge loss CEO and Chairman “volunteered” their walking papers. I would like to see Lutz or Wagoner suggesting remotely that personally screwed up. Never happens, it’s either oil, economy, Toyota, unions, all of the above.