GM February U.S. Sales: +11.5% to 141,951 vehicles, vs. expected +20%. Core brands (Chevrolet,...


GM February U.S. Sales: +11.5% to 141,951 vehicles, vs. expected +20%. Core brands (Chevrolet, Buick, GMC, Cadillac) up 32%; castoff brands (Saturn, Hummer, Pontiac, Saab) -86.1% to 3,102 vehicles. Chevrolet Equinox +132.8%. Buick LaCross +163%. Cadillac SRX +541.7%.
Comments (19)
  • j_remington
    , contributor
    Comments (1341) | Send Message
     
    This information is priced into the market already.
    2 Mar 2010, 10:44 AM Reply Like
  • Papaswamp
    , contributor
    Comments (2241) | Send Message
     
    Gotta love the impact of the $3.8 Billion gift on Dec 31st from the taxpayer to GMAC....makes sales go up every time. More debt for the individual and the govt.. Double whammy!

     

    blogs.cars.com/kicking...
    2 Mar 2010, 10:54 AM Reply Like
  • User 489326
    , contributor
    Comments (270) | Send Message
     
    Gee, I hate to see grown bears cry! The economy is recovering slowly; but, recovering whether you guys like it or not. Looks like high profit cars too.
    2 Mar 2010, 11:08 AM Reply Like
  • Papaswamp
    , contributor
    Comments (2241) | Send Message
     
    Hey if you got a $3.8 Billion injection...you had better show improvement.
    2 Mar 2010, 11:10 AM Reply Like
  • User 489326
    , contributor
    Comments (270) | Send Message
     
    one of us is missing the point. I believe GMAC is the financing arm of GM and the $3.8B was intended to increase financing, to increase sales, to increase production, to increase the work force, to increase dollar turnover in the econmoy and to ultimately increase income tax collections. Looks to me like it is working. This is also why I think the lady McArdle (Ibelieve that's the right name) is wrong about the Govt not being able to do anything about long term job production.
    2 Mar 2010, 11:21 AM Reply Like
  • Papaswamp
    , contributor
    Comments (2241) | Send Message
     
    Yes it did exactly that. It required ANOTHER injection of capital to get things rolling not because of demand, but because they were able to lure people in with cheap rates. Isn't this the same mentality that got us into this mess in the first place? This company is incapable of supporting itself.

     

    Now the govt has increased its debt and so have the consumers that took out the loans.
    2 Mar 2010, 11:27 AM Reply Like
  • User 489326
    , contributor
    Comments (270) | Send Message
     
    you are right....demand was low. The injection allowed GM to stimulate demand with low interest rates thereby increasing demand, sales, production, workers and most importantly money turnover in the economy. Do you think Coke and Pepsi advertise because demand is so great? No. They advertise to stimulate demand, sales, etc etc. The Govt injection of capital was purposely intended to increase low demand. I can't believe you don't see that. It's very simple. Dangle the carrot in front of their nose.
    2 Mar 2010, 11:43 AM Reply Like
  • Papaswamp
    , contributor
    Comments (2241) | Send Message
     
    I do see it....and it is not free market. That is propping up of a failed business. Coke and Pepsi didn't need a bailout. This was the 3rd for GMAC/GM.....how many more?

     

    Why do people think propping up a failing business is a good thing?

     

    Govt goes deeper into debt and so do the people lured to take out loans. This is the same mentality that caused the mess. Why don't you see this?
    2 Mar 2010, 12:03 PM Reply Like
  • User 489326
    , contributor
    Comments (270) | Send Message
     
    So. You think it would have been better to allow all those "bailed out" companys to have gone under and drop kicked all their employees out of work and onto Government pay of some kind. Unemployment etc. I'm sure as H glad you and others like you aren't running this country. The Chinese would have us by the balls for sure. All that would have done was destroy what little bit of manufacturing base this country has left. And, no I did not say Coke and Pepsi needed bailouts. I was trying top draw a parallel for you. But, apparently that went over your head.
    2 Mar 2010, 01:06 PM Reply Like
  • bfstrog
    , contributor
    Comments (74) | Send Message
     
    "The injection allowed GM to stimulate demand with low interest rates thereby increasing demand, sales, production, workers and most importantly money turnover in the economy."

     

    Real demand comes from real income. If you "stimulate" an industry it just time-shifts the demand to the present, thereby causing a larger drop-off in the future. This future drop-off can be even more damaging because producers built excess capacity to accomodate the stimulated demand numbers. This over-capacity situation causes the producers to default on their loans and the cycle begins yet again. We have seen again and again that government intervention does not produce real demand.

     

    "You think it would have been better to allow all those "bailed out" companys to have gone under and drop kicked all their employees out of work "

     

    Large firm failures should be allowed to pass through bankruptcy and to sell off their non-performing assets where they can create more value. These resources (people) would be better off creating value somewhere else in the economy and not wasting their time running a zombie organization into the ground. These companies are inefficient and should be broken up.
    2 Mar 2010, 01:57 PM Reply Like
  • User 489326
    , contributor
    Comments (270) | Send Message
     
    Many of the cars sold were not future demand they were last years demand. People needing a new car but concerned enough about the future that they weren't willing buy until the right incentive came along.

     

    My question is; How much would it have cost the US taxpayer to take care of all these additonal laid off workers? How many more foreclosures wold we have had? How many more bank failures? It would have been a domino effect. And, I don't think either one of you fully comprehend the economic chaos you are advocating. Let's bite our collective noses off to spite our faces!
    2 Mar 2010, 02:30 PM Reply Like
  • Papaswamp
    , contributor
    Comments (2241) | Send Message
     
    Please tell me who the largest employer of workers are in this country? Large bailed out corporations like GM, AIG, Fannie and Freddie or small businesses?

     

    As of March 2009, $13 Trillion had been thrown at this problem and we are no better. Bad assets are still on the books instead of being separated away. Companies that should be allowed to fail are being propped up while the largest employer (small business) continues to die under ever increasing tax/regulatory burden.
    www.bloomberg.com/apps...

     

    Small Business bankruptcies continue to rise. You know...the ones that employ 70% of the workers....or at least used to.
    www.reuters.com/articl...

     

    Clearly throwing money at the problem isn't fixing it.

     

    China is eating our lunch due to slave wages, no benefits, no capital gains tax, tariffs on our goods, no environmental regulation, cheap dangerous products, no intellectual property protection and the lure of the possibility of 1 billion customers. Ultimately though, I think China has a huge looming bubble in inventory of goods and real estate.
    www.businessinsider.co...
    www.businessinsider.co...
    2 Mar 2010, 03:26 PM Reply Like
  • bfstrog
    , contributor
    Comments (74) | Send Message
     
    User, a prosperous economy exists when entities create value from their available resources and pass that value onto consumers. Zombie firms actually destroy value, and eat up taxpayer money in the process. It would be a much better use of money to break up these firms into pieces, and sell off the assets to other firms that might benefit from their use. There might be some short term pain, but in the long run (which has gotten shorter and shorter) this is the only way an entrepreneurial capitalist society can exist. Taking money from the pockets of the taxpayers to prop up failing businesses is actually making us poorer and putting us deeper into the hole. I would rather have my tax dollar go to an unemployed person and have these companies go out of business than what is presently occurring.

     

    What bugs me about the "multiplier value" theory of government spending is that every citizen is paying for this spending NO MATTER WHAT. Wouldn't you rather choose the way you spent your dollar, i.e., on a company or product that makes your life better, or invest that dollar into a firm that has a promising chance of growth and success and making society better as a whole? The problem is that there is no punishment for failure, so irresponsible risk taking has no consequences. This "stimulus", now merely propping up businesses, will occur more often in instances like AIG until the entire government is propping up the economy - I hope you own gold, guns, whisky, and plenty of canned food.
    2 Mar 2010, 04:03 PM Reply Like
  • User 489326
    , contributor
    Comments (270) | Send Message
     
    If you're getting your butt kicked, it doesn't matter much why 'cause you are still geting your butt kicked. If we don't protect our manufacturing base etc. China and others will just give us an even bigger butt kickin'.
    3 Mar 2010, 08:29 AM Reply Like
  • Papaswamp
    , contributor
    Comments (2241) | Send Message
     
    I stated above why our manufacturing base is getting hammered. Pumping cash into them doesn't eliminate the underlying cause...it just keeps them alive longer. Why can Ford out do GM? No govt propping.....
    3 Mar 2010, 08:39 AM Reply Like
  • User 489326
    , contributor
    Comments (270) | Send Message
     
    Actually I think GM has an exceptionally good chance of recovering. Chrysler not so good. AIG I believe will surprise you. I've even put some money where my mouth is on that one too. Furthermore it appears most of the bailout funds will be recovered. Some bailouts have actually turned a profit. Invest in America!
    3 Mar 2010, 08:41 AM Reply Like
  • Papaswamp
    , contributor
    Comments (2241) | Send Message
     
    I'm sorry but AIG, Fannie and Freddie should not be publicly traded. Unlimited taxpayer bank account is not real market. It is a complete fraud.
    3 Mar 2010, 08:56 AM Reply Like
  • User 489326
    , contributor
    Comments (270) | Send Message
     
    Did anyone read in Wedns posts about the GM Toyota joint venture's pensions being taken over by the Pension Guarantee corp. That's another reason I was in favor of helping GM. That little joint venture dumped about $130 m in unfunded pension liabilities into the PG corps lap. How much unfunded pension liabilities would have been dumped into it if GM's current and future retirees had went into that program? I was thinking it was a better deal to help GM overcome their problems and let them deal with their pensions. This came with the added benefit of keeping a few thousand people working, paying taxes and their mortgage.
    3 Mar 2010, 11:42 AM Reply Like
  • Papaswamp
    , contributor
    Comments (2241) | Send Message
     
    The NUMMI plant is closing. they are only covering the retirees pensions. GM and Toyota have/are both pulling out. NUMMI will be on it's own...I suspect it won't last long.

     

    "Toyota is ending production this month at the Fremont, California, plant where for 25 years it jointly assembled vehicles with General Motors under NUMMI.

     

    GM pulled out of the partnership last June as part of its bankruptcy reorganization, prompting the Japanese automaker to follow suit."
    3 Mar 2010, 12:38 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs