Deweyp

I Was Wrong About GM Bankruptcy

Finally, someone with a sensible comment. Very well said.


On Jul 07 11:19 AM User 158164 wrote:

> Somewhere between Davewmart and Detfan is reality. Every recession
> you hear the "the economy will never be the same again" and they
> are right, the economy comes back different, and usually better.
> I remember the late 80's doom and gloom, followed by the 90's unemployment
> so low a blind felon could get a job as a night watchman.
>
> On the other hand, GM is facing world wide competition from Volkswagon,
> Fiat, Toyota, a resurgent Ford, Honda, and now a slew of Chinese
> and Indian companies. If they all take only 2% market share, just
> in sheer numbers of companies it will be a hard row to hoe.
>
> Buy back the stock? Yeah, that was a winning strategy in the 90's
> - $25 Billion in stock buy backs and now that stock is worth zero.
> The smart money spends money on product, not stock buy backs.
>
> GM has some excellent product now, I have a Silverado with ZERO issues
> and I have driven the new Camaro and it is world class. They need
> to keep that quality up.
>
> Most of what I read about the UAW is based on stuff they read before
> the new contract, and even more changes have taken place with the
> crisis. I never met the guy "making $80 an hour sweeping floors"
> in the first place. Most of that crap was just BS anyway. There
> are some horror stories, but I can tell you some horror stories about
> non-union shops also. Somehow a truck a minute spits out the back
> door, so someone must doing some work.
>
> I know there are some retards talking boycotting, yeah that makes
> sense. Put Americans out of work solely because you don't like the
> President and drive down the value of the company so that you the
> taxpayer loses money in some kind of childish hissy fit. Fortunately
> I think those numbers are small and their job at the car wash does
> not buy a new car anyway.
>
> In other words, if you are looking at the future for GM, I think
> you can be pretty optimistic, but realistic.
>
> I think more important to the question is not what will GM do, but
> will this country EVER develop a sensible manufacturing policy that
> will get us back to work.

Fuel Systems Solutions Conceptualizes a Better Energy Policy

You are right, I'm just a hard working grunt in the auto industry who heats his house with fuel oil, but I have an electric plug in my garage. I was told that charging up a Chevy Volt costs less than running my refer (about $.80 a day for 40 miles of travel) and it works on 110 VAC. Some folks in my neck of the woods have LPG for their furnace and hot water but no ready outlet to connect to their car if they had one. Having conversed with some of them I noted a concern about safety from leaks, fire and explosion from a leak. I have noted also the safety measures that the local hardware employs when filling my gas grill tank and when questioned, the guy told me that they were State mandated because of past accidents. No such problems exist with Electric as circuit breakers protect against accidents, which seldom happen. But again, without the afore mentioned technical experience I can only rely on my extensive practical experience and that of the guys in the neighborhood and at work who use Electric tools. I hear that several battery development/production centers are now up and running in the US and GM will announce one (probably in Michigan for the Volt support) that will be in operation by late 2010. What I think those of us with a practical bent are up against here is a deck stacked with commenters who have a pro nat gas agenda, and that's OK, 'cause we all get to comment on our beliefs and desires and if there is any believable logic to our comments other logical folks (as opposed to you technical types) will read and agree or disagree. I'm betting on logic and apparently so is GM and Chrysler and Ford and, oh yah, Toyota and Honda.


On Jun 12 01:39 PM ART005 wrote:

> Deweyp, I don't think you have a technical background:
> 1. Natural gas cars do exist. Fueling systems exist.
> 2. Adding regenerative braking to a natural gas car is not a technological
> hurdle.
> 3. PHEV (plug-ins) are a huge unknown based on world supply of battery
> materials, operating range, life/cost cycle, charge rate capacity,
> weather sensitivity, and all around market demand. The market/gov
> has to decide if PHEV are going to be light productive vehicles unable
> to meet current crash standards or PHEV will meet crash standards
> and give up most benefits of elec. car technology.
> 4. Almost 10 years ago practical analyst called for the bankruptcy
> of GM based on simple revenue vs. income charts. Union reps held
> their positions encouraging outlandish compensation and Execs. signed
> the contracts to keep the place going long enough for them to collect
> a few more years of million dollar salaries. The whole thing was
> a predicted scam publicized 9 years ago. Sorry you didn't get the
> memo! Details above in NakedJayBird.
> 5. GM had a 40 years head start on U.S. automarket. They blew that
> and everything else. Don't tell U.S. families paying their bills
> what social engineering now has to be done for U.S. auto industry
> to pretend they haven't destroyed themselves. U.S. auto industry
> doesn't build Nat Gas cars because they think they don't have to.
> Me thinks they doth protest too much!!
> 6. When you try to justify the value of an industry that killed itself,
> each auto worker you describe in your first post should ask themself
> would they pay themselves the rate to do the work for themself the
> rate they were being paid? The same applies to alot of U.S. workers.
>
>
> On Jun 12 01:10 PM Deweyp wrote:

Fuel Systems Solutions Conceptualizes a Better Energy Policy

Michael. I see 3 problems here. 1) The car you mentioned is a concept, not yet in production, if ever. 2) Being a foreign brand, it does not address the issue of American manufacturing jobs, American company profits or US taxes paid. 3) Although I agree that nat gas would solve many problems, there is no nation wide system set up for refueling. If we are to gain an immediate effect we must begin with what is currently available, then take the next step when feasible. If you recall, back when commodities were being driven to the moon, nat gas was well over $10. Without proper controls it will again go beyond affordability for most consumers and any positive effect will be lost. Maybe the most effective process would be to develop the plug in electrics and leave nat gas to the utility companies. The electric grid is already in place, although it needs upgrading to support an electric auto fleet.
No one I know in the auto industry wants to rip the tax payers off. The full intention was for 100% payback once GM and Chrysler is back on their feet. Hopefully Ford will not need assistance as it appears auto sales are on the mend.

Fuel Systems Solutions Conceptualizes a Better Energy Policy

My God, it is so refreshing to read your comments because I can tell they truly come from your heart. I too am tired of reading and hearing from only those who love to bash the hard working folks in our American auto industry. There was much that needed to be fixed in our union and that is being done, but few people writing these pieces and comments really understand what patriots those of us who work with our hand are. We arise before sunup 6 days a week and seldom get home before sundown. We serve in the armed forces, go to church on Sunday support our families and stand taking our hats off when we hear the National Anthem. Maybe we vote democratic but that doesn't mean we support what the media calls the liberal agenda. We love this country and have a lot of faith in it's ability to win and we get mad as hell when someone trashes it. Keep up the good work American-Born, I love it.


On Jun 11 11:41 PM american-born wrote:

> Sorry --- for writing a little long --- I have a lot more to say
> -- like too many American soldier have fought for more than seems
> to be happening in their and our Country ---- I'm gone

The Failure of General Motors Is a Failure of Government Policy

Since the UAW has a monopoly on representation for auto workers for all of the big 3, they have the ability to shut one down during strike and allow the other 2 to continue to produce and sell cars. Faced with this possibility, GM was forced to accept the outrageous demands the union made or go out of business. We do not like to pay $4 a gal for gas but if you have no other choice you dig deep and pay it or park your car and stay home. GM was in the exact same position as share holders would not allow the company to go out of business, leading to an untenable contract. Michael is one of the very few who truly understands the situation that lead to the demise of GM and Chrysler.


On Jun 08 08:51 AM colion wrote:

> Your title is not quite correct. As you note in the article, the
> problem is not just a government failure (which in turn reflects
> us the voters) but also of GM management. One aspect of this incompetence
> was accepting union contracts with ridiculous benefits. GM, like
> so many other companies and industries, looked to inflation to keep
> them above water and hide their actions.

Auto Manufacturing - An Industry Whose Time Is Up

To answer the question of why this wasn't done sooner? State franchise laws prevent outright "breaking" a franchise. Look at the problems involved trying to rationalize dealerships by Chrysler and GM even after filing Ch 11. GM has, for the past decade, been reducing the number of dealerships through whatever means possible in a lawful manner to keep dealership volume at a profitable level. A low volume dealership cannot sell a car or truck as cheaply as a high volume dealership making the product uncompetitive with the Asian brands. With the UAW having a strangle hold on the big 3 (picking one target company and holding them hostage in strike, while allowing the other 2 to build and sell cars) it was inevitable that labor and benefits costs would escalate to untenable levels, as the target company had to eventually yield to the union demands or go out of business. As long as sales volume in the US remained high (16 million +) the big 3 were able to survive even though turning in losses each quarter. Reducing sales to less than 10 million was the eventual undoing of GM and Chrysler. Even Honda and Toyota were unable to make a profit at that level. Mike Smitka (comments above) is correct in his analysis of the rise in healthcare costs. The US government is as much to blame in all of this, as imports and transplant autos are allowed to compete here with none of the overhead costs the big 3 face, such as health care for an older workforce and retirement benefits for over a million. As long as this is allowed, this country will continue to lose our manufacturing jobs and history will judge us harshly because of it.

GM's Use of Bailout Money: What Else Aren't They Telling Us?

Delphi is a major supplier to GM and as such is critical to the survival of the "New GM". No one in the Obama administration or at GM is trying to hoodwink the American people with underhanded moves as you suggest. The dealerships that are being cut were not as viable as some would have you believe. Fewer dealerships means higher volume at those who remain and better pricing to the ultimate customer making GM more competitive with the Asian brands. There is a reason why a product at Walmart is less expensive than at the small corner store.

GM Bankruptcy? Probability Using Options

Nearly all the dealerships being cut have very low profits and do not enjoy the prime real estate you mention. The prime locations are the ones being kept open, mostly just for that reason. Having called on dealerships in Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky for many years, I can tell you that less than half would be considered prime locations. In most cases the impact on a community will be barely noticed by that community.


On May 29 07:23 PM Mad Hedge Fund Trader wrote:

> It's going down. The imminent demise of General Motors (seekingalpha.com/symbo...)
> will be a nail in the coffin for the commercial real estate market,
> which I believe will be the financial crisis of 2009. Some 2,000
> dealers are being axed, dumping hundreds of millions of square feet
> on to a market that least wants it. These were the guys who sponsored
> the local baseball team and Girl Scout cookie sales, and their absence
> will rip the hearts out of hundreds of American communities. Much
> of this is prime space, near dense populations, with great frontage,
> adjacent retail space, completed site work, mitigated environmental
> work, and already zoned for commercial use. Some might get turned
> into mini malls, but I’m afraid more will end up as indoor climbing
> walls and paintball battlefields. Commercial real estate sales are
> off 73% this year, while vacancies have catapulted to 16.7%. Banks
> have seized 464 properties so far in 2009, including $7 billion worth
> in March alone, and thousands more are on the brink.

Some Facts in the GM Propaganda Race

Numbers I have seen show assembly labor costs at only 10% of the total for an auto built here in America. The greatest cost is involved in materials, engineering, marketing and distribution along with fixed factory costs. You cannot expect to get high quality assembly using workers who are paid less than they can earn at McDonalds or Walmart. The new contract with the UAW lowers wages and benefits to a competitive level with other manufacturing jobs in other US industries.
Actually the Aztek is a really nice vehicle but it didn't appeal to many folks because of styling. The same could be said of a few models from Honda and Toyota. I know folks who bought a new Aztek every year until the model was dropped. If you had ever driven one you would never compare it to a Pinto or Vega.


On May 28 10:39 PM conceptwizard wrote:

> Obamas new fuel targets will be a challenge along with making cars
> people want. Pick 6 models make them well and warranty them strong.
> They make a few models now that sell. Keep the prices down. I still
> believe the business model they have will be obsolete before they
> start. In order to compete on a world market you have to have wages
> competitive to the median. The wages & benefits here compared
> to other parts of the world are way higher. Ford & GM can build
> the same car at half the cost outside the country, they have been
> for some time. This is an attempt to maintain a dying business model
> by saving votes using taxpayers hard earned money. If they are going
> down this road they might as well throw out the competition via protectionism.
> At least that way we would be guaranteed our money back.

Chrysler Travesty Hearings Continue

This day was written in the wind over 20 years ago and as many predicted it has happened. As to F having superior products in the pipeline while GM and C have not, I question who would have that true knowledge, as these are very closely guarded secrets, unless already announced. What may be the probable outcome of all of this is C and GM, unencumbered of the debt that drags any development of future products down, brings forth the great products they have had in the pipeline, while F stumbles trying to finance their pipeline products while laden with draconian debt that has not been forgiven. Those who truly understand the auto industry know that product plans are made several years (3-5) in advance and this economy downturn is only 9 months old, although it really began 20 months ago. It is purely supposition to say one company has better products "in the pipeline" than another, especially when one looks at the superior products that have been produced by C and GM (Dodge Mini Van, Cadillac CTS,
Chevy Malibu, Chevy Volt, Jeep, Dodge Challenger and above all the 2010 Camaro). These are acknowledged product winners. The morass C & GM currently find themselves in is purely financial and is in no way a result of the product they have brought to market. To be sure F has shown many successful products and I am sure they have more in the pipeline, but let's not confuse economic problems with product issues and, we should not assume that F has solved all their economic problems as well. There is a reason Ford's major supplier (Visteon) filed chapter 11 today and it is an economic issue just as it was for GM's major supplier Delphi. The American auto industry is truly the best in the world and once these issues are resolved and the economy improves, they will be back on top, no matter what the Asian guys tell you.

Obama's New Mileage Standards: Let's Wait and See How the Final Rules Shake Out

How in the name of all that's Holy are we supposed to haul our campers, boats and trailers under this new mandate? Probably one of the most dangerous highway issues will be an under powered vehicle trying to haul a trailer full of horses or a boat that weighs twice as much as the car, up a hill at 10 mph. I for one intend to keep my 89 Chevy pickup (245,000 miles) for just that purpose. Twenty years from now these will be more valuable than new cars.

Death of an American Icon

Unfortunately the human tragedy of this will be washed away in the numbers as the media reports the weekly unemployment figures. I remember thinking about the Enron folks as that company went down. There was, and still is, a huge downside to that debacle and the same thing is happening at Chrysler and GM. Someone needs to trace back the path of destruction and incorporate the lessons into our financial training programs to prevent this from happening in other industries. We were all told that open markets to the world was good for our country, but for the life of me I can't see how, looking at our country's economic morass and the destruction of this once great icon.

Weekly Street Sentiment: Sell Side Is Passive Aggressive

Yup, and $10 by years end


On May 12 07:33 AM User 412289 wrote:

> gm will be .10 by weeks end

UAW: It Should Be Giving Up More

For some people it becomes like a game to pick an issue that is in the news, then work up a convoluted article using doubtful math while ignoring almost every other segment of society that could fit that same pattern. How about Truck Drivers or Steel Workers or Highway Maint. Workers or Teachers.... The list goes on and on. People choose their profession for a lot of different reasons and there will always be pay disparities. If you believe that everyone should earn the same amount, think about what Communism did for the Soviet Union with that approach.

Politically Powerful Unions: A New Class of Senior Debt?

That should be FAIR LABOR, which has not existed within the UAW ranks for over 40 years. The reductions mentioned do not even come close to bringing runaway labor in the auto industry back to par. The last labor contract drove the final nail in GM's coffin. Your defense of UAW practices simply will not fly.


On Apr 29 09:02 AM Bibble wrote:

> Turn about is fair play. While GM was paying huge dividends and making
> huge overseas investments with money that should've beeen set aside
> for retirees, plants were closing, COLA was delayed, health care
> was rising and union leadership went right along with the company.
> Now when the ramifications of not properly funding their obligations
> comes home to roast, the same folks who benefited from that slight-of-hand
> are whining again because they can't simply throw the workers who
> made decades of windfalls possible in the trash can? The union's
> hairCUTS began well before the latest and most severe ones of 05,
> 06, 07, 08 and 09.
>
> "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only
> the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not
> first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the
> higher consideration." - Abe Lincoln