Markham Lee_'s Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/94086/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/132223-unemployment-around-the-world?source=feed#comment-472927 472927
How is not a big deal if a lot of the new job creation is for lower paying jobs, and (for the moment) the economy is shedding jobs?

I don't get your argument.

User - I think Micro businesses sounds good, and I admit it can help some folks. BUT I don't think it's feasible as a broad band solution for everyone, just think of it: if you had several million competitors with the very same web site you're running, you wouldn't make very much money.

Considering the failure rates of entrepreneurs in general and the competition introduced if "everyone does it", I just don't think it's a broadband solution.

-M]]> Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:25:17 -0400
How is not a big deal if a lot of the new job creation is for lower paying jobs, and (for the moment) the economy is shedding jobs?

I don't get your argument.

User - I think Micro businesses sounds good, and I admit it can help some folks. BUT I don't think it's feasible as a broad band solution for everyone, just think of it: if you had several million competitors with the very same web site you're running, you wouldn't make very much money.

Considering the failure rates of entrepreneurs in general and the competition introduced if "everyone does it", I just don't think it's a broadband solution.

-M]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/131988-five-myths-about-business-failure-in-a-downturn?source=feed#comment-471396 471396
It was an odd situation because I had more incentives to be mediocre via "maintaining the facade" than I did to excel in ways that corrected and/or exposed our problems.

In the end it drove me (and all of my peers at the time) from the company. I.e. maintaining the facade removed the people who could drive change.

Friar - I think the way you reward innovation is to make it priority via sending the message that NOTHING is sacred, your employees have to understand that your mission is to innovate, drive change and constantly find ways to improve the business. Because when you make something sacred employees are afraid to speak-up, and/or feel as if there is no point in trying to fix certain things because management won't support it.

There is a book called "Execution" that puts forth the idea that managers should act like football coaches, in that they should always be looking for ways to improve the organization, raise the playing ability of their talent, etc. It's a good analogy because even though some players, offensive/defensive schemes, etc, stick around too long, in the end the team has to innovate, load up with better talent or die.

-M]]> Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:10:11 -0400
It was an odd situation because I had more incentives to be mediocre via "maintaining the facade" than I did to excel in ways that corrected and/or exposed our problems.

In the end it drove me (and all of my peers at the time) from the company. I.e. maintaining the facade removed the people who could drive change.

Friar - I think the way you reward innovation is to make it priority via sending the message that NOTHING is sacred, your employees have to understand that your mission is to innovate, drive change and constantly find ways to improve the business. Because when you make something sacred employees are afraid to speak-up, and/or feel as if there is no point in trying to fix certain things because management won't support it.

There is a book called "Execution" that puts forth the idea that managers should act like football coaches, in that they should always be looking for ways to improve the organization, raise the playing ability of their talent, etc. It's a good analogy because even though some players, offensive/defensive schemes, etc, stick around too long, in the end the team has to innovate, load up with better talent or die.

-M]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/130104-detroit-uses-aid-to-open-up-auto-lending-not-necessarily-good-for-gm?source=feed#comment-456384 456384
GM was selling cars for a loss during the credit boom, and at present they're dealing with a double edged sword of lower sales volumes and lower revenue per car due to the various incentives they're offering. The company isn't going to recover by selling cars at an even greater loss, especially in the face of lower volumes.

It's not about GM vs. Ford or GM vs. the Germans.

It's about the very simple mathematical fact that you can't get ahead by selling a car for an even greater loss per car, than you were when sales volumes were significantly higher.


-M]]> Wed, 08 Apr 2009 12:22:32 -0400
GM was selling cars for a loss during the credit boom, and at present they're dealing with a double edged sword of lower sales volumes and lower revenue per car due to the various incentives they're offering. The company isn't going to recover by selling cars at an even greater loss, especially in the face of lower volumes.

It's not about GM vs. Ford or GM vs. the Germans.

It's about the very simple mathematical fact that you can't get ahead by selling a car for an even greater loss per car, than you were when sales volumes were significantly higher.


-M]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/129843-green-stimulus-by-nation?source=feed#comment-455241 455241
The chart comes from the Economist.com so feel free to post it, just credit them when you do. The original link is here: www.economist.com/rese...

-M]]> Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:13:06 -0400
The chart comes from the Economist.com so feel free to post it, just credit them when you do. The original link is here: www.economist.com/rese...

-M]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128638-the-aig-death-star?source=feed#comment-447091 447091

-M]]> Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:33:53 -0400

-M]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/127523-gm-needs-to-be-leaner-and-meaner-if-it-wants-to-survive?source=feed#comment-438834 438834
The Ford Mondeo competes very favorably against Accord, Camry and the VW Passat in Europe. But instead of bringing the vehicle over here (designed by Ford of Germany), we get the Detroit designed Fusion on a similar platform.

The reason?

Ford believed that American buyers would like the Fusion better, despite the fact that Mondeo competes (or beats) the same foreign cars in Europe that are sold here.

It's a critical misstep and indicative of the mistakes Detroit has made.

I also think that there is sort of ideological argument going on, where Detroit is determined to win via doing things "their way" and/or some people just want to like the American cars better.

In the end unless your objective and acknowledge your competitor's strengths you can't win, Detroit has to embrace the very valid reasons why some people prefer foreign cars. Going with the attitude of "We're better the consumer won't admit it" isn't going to cut it.

Finally as I said before if Honda can make billions with 7% market share, there is NO reason why GM and Ford can't do the same. It's time to get right sized for marketplace.

Also the fact that Toyota is having issues is all together irrelevant really, all that's relevant is who is better positioned to get their ship on the right course again. Toyota's problems was introducing some inefficient engineering vanity projects into the manufacturing process, once they ditch those items they'll be fine.

GM's road isn't so clear cut.

Thanks for reading everyone.


-Markham]]> Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:21:56 -0400
The Ford Mondeo competes very favorably against Accord, Camry and the VW Passat in Europe. But instead of bringing the vehicle over here (designed by Ford of Germany), we get the Detroit designed Fusion on a similar platform.

The reason?

Ford believed that American buyers would like the Fusion better, despite the fact that Mondeo competes (or beats) the same foreign cars in Europe that are sold here.

It's a critical misstep and indicative of the mistakes Detroit has made.

I also think that there is sort of ideological argument going on, where Detroit is determined to win via doing things "their way" and/or some people just want to like the American cars better.

In the end unless your objective and acknowledge your competitor's strengths you can't win, Detroit has to embrace the very valid reasons why some people prefer foreign cars. Going with the attitude of "We're better the consumer won't admit it" isn't going to cut it.

Finally as I said before if Honda can make billions with 7% market share, there is NO reason why GM and Ford can't do the same. It's time to get right sized for marketplace.

Also the fact that Toyota is having issues is all together irrelevant really, all that's relevant is who is better positioned to get their ship on the right course again. Toyota's problems was introducing some inefficient engineering vanity projects into the manufacturing process, once they ditch those items they'll be fine.

GM's road isn't so clear cut.

Thanks for reading everyone.


-Markham]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/126959-the-latest-bad-idea-government-sponsored-vouchers-for-car-purchases?source=feed#comment-434053 434053
I personally put off buying a new car because of the economy and the voucher program wouldn't sway me one bit, it's not an issue of saving $5k it's an issue of saving the rest of the purchase cost.

The other issue is that if this program is co-sponsored by the automakers they would be selling the cars for a loss, something they already do with their big incentives (the boys in Detroit at least) how does that help anyone?

As for 50% off I'm basing that on the prices some local domestic dealers are charging now based on the historical price, it's not advertised that way but between the incentives, employee pricing, etc, it's in the neighborhood.

The local Ford Dealer is offering Explorers at about 1/2 of what they would've cost about 18+ months ago.

-M]]> Fri, 20 Mar 2009 17:37:28 -0400
I personally put off buying a new car because of the economy and the voucher program wouldn't sway me one bit, it's not an issue of saving $5k it's an issue of saving the rest of the purchase cost.

The other issue is that if this program is co-sponsored by the automakers they would be selling the cars for a loss, something they already do with their big incentives (the boys in Detroit at least) how does that help anyone?

As for 50% off I'm basing that on the prices some local domestic dealers are charging now based on the historical price, it's not advertised that way but between the incentives, employee pricing, etc, it's in the neighborhood.

The local Ford Dealer is offering Explorers at about 1/2 of what they would've cost about 18+ months ago.

-M]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/124030-saab-s-problems-stem-from-gm-s-brand-mismanagement?source=feed#comment-413237 413237
For instance I'm not interested in Subaru but I would be interested in an upgraded version of the 9-3, as I did test drive the current one.

Fabienhug: to each his own, never been a mustang guy. If I guy a Pony car it's going to be the new Camaro - assuming GM survives long enough to produce it.

In any event the overall idea is that Saab has been losing customers since GM took over, and that the brand's fans are more interested in (mostly) in the company's Pre-GM cars than the post GM ones.

In any event GM mismanaged Pontiac into the ground, so it's no wonder that they couldn't do anything with Saab.


-M

]]> Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:52:44 -0500
For instance I'm not interested in Subaru but I would be interested in an upgraded version of the 9-3, as I did test drive the current one.

Fabienhug: to each his own, never been a mustang guy. If I guy a Pony car it's going to be the new Camaro - assuming GM survives long enough to produce it.

In any event the overall idea is that Saab has been losing customers since GM took over, and that the brand's fans are more interested in (mostly) in the company's Pre-GM cars than the post GM ones.

In any event GM mismanaged Pontiac into the ground, so it's no wonder that they couldn't do anything with Saab.


-M

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/123900-how-did-hyundai-increase-sales-in-january?source=feed#comment-412241 412241
I don't see how this doesn't bite them in the end, and doesn't turn into a GM-esque quest for market share at any cost.

-M]]> Wed, 04 Mar 2009 06:04:39 -0500
I don't see how this doesn't bite them in the end, and doesn't turn into a GM-esque quest for market share at any cost.

-M]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/123116-gm-to-report-losses-of-31-billion-for-08-9-6-billion-for-q4?source=feed#comment-407123 407123
The way I see it there is a viable car company within GM if you can separate it from the liabilities and debts it cannot pay, however without that separation GM will likely never recover. After all they have lost almost $70B over the last two years, Car sales aren't likely to recover to their prior levels, and the cars that are sold are likely to be less profitable models.

The Volt is still at least 12-18 months away and it's unlikely (due to the price) that they will sell enough of them to return to profitability.

Let's say that via restructuring GM can get its annual losses down to $10 Billion a year, and for some reason the Volt is an extremely profitable car that can be sold with a margin of $4.5k/each (about 3X what Toyota was getting during the height of the credit boom, around that same time GM was losing $2.5k/car)

www.npr.org/news/speci.../

To break even just from Volt sales GM would have to sell $10B/4.5k = 2.2 Million vehicles/yr to compensate for the losses.

Now does that sound realistic to you, especially when the margin is likely to be 1/2 of that and with its current structure GM's margins per car are nowhere near that level?

Right now it would be a dramatic improvement for GM to begin making $500 per car sold, and if they could make just $1k on the Volt or equal Toyota's number of $1.5k - you're pushing total volt sales towards the 7 Million Range or close to 60-70% of the total car sales in the U.S. this YEAR.

The Volt cannot save GM

GM has to implement a drastic restructuring to unlock its valuable parts.

IF the government provides support to the supply chain via supporting GM (and it's suppliers) through the process, you can mitigate a lot of the job losses. Unemployment will not go to 25% and GM can be viable.

We shouldn't let fear of things we can prevent, keep us from doing what we need to do in order to save GM.


-M
]]> Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:58:08 -0500
The way I see it there is a viable car company within GM if you can separate it from the liabilities and debts it cannot pay, however without that separation GM will likely never recover. After all they have lost almost $70B over the last two years, Car sales aren't likely to recover to their prior levels, and the cars that are sold are likely to be less profitable models.

The Volt is still at least 12-18 months away and it's unlikely (due to the price) that they will sell enough of them to return to profitability.

Let's say that via restructuring GM can get its annual losses down to $10 Billion a year, and for some reason the Volt is an extremely profitable car that can be sold with a margin of $4.5k/each (about 3X what Toyota was getting during the height of the credit boom, around that same time GM was losing $2.5k/car)

www.npr.org/news/speci.../

To break even just from Volt sales GM would have to sell $10B/4.5k = 2.2 Million vehicles/yr to compensate for the losses.

Now does that sound realistic to you, especially when the margin is likely to be 1/2 of that and with its current structure GM's margins per car are nowhere near that level?

Right now it would be a dramatic improvement for GM to begin making $500 per car sold, and if they could make just $1k on the Volt or equal Toyota's number of $1.5k - you're pushing total volt sales towards the 7 Million Range or close to 60-70% of the total car sales in the U.S. this YEAR.

The Volt cannot save GM

GM has to implement a drastic restructuring to unlock its valuable parts.

IF the government provides support to the supply chain via supporting GM (and it's suppliers) through the process, you can mitigate a lot of the job losses. Unemployment will not go to 25% and GM can be viable.

We shouldn't let fear of things we can prevent, keep us from doing what we need to do in order to save GM.


-M
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/122826-auto-manufacturing-what-does-buy-american-even-mean?source=feed#comment-406484 406484
On Ross Perot: he joined the board in the early 90s and began going to dealerships, talking to customers, dealers, etc, buying cars, all to gather intelligence on the marketplace and the car buying process. He was ignored by the board and quite out of frustration.

Pricing & Competition: generally speaking Toyotas and Hondas cost more than their Detroit counterparts, especially when you consider that the former don't use anywhere near as many incentives, discounts, etc.

Let's not forget that Detroit was selling many cars for a loss for most of this decade just to get them off the lot.

Perhaps that's the reason they sought out foreign parts, it wasn't so much to remain competitive as it was maintain their business model.

I.e. it's fairly easy to pay $25-$30k for a Camry or an Accord, while it's fairly easy to get a loaded competing model from Detroit for much less.

The idea that Japanese cars are cheaper is based on how the market operated in the 80s, but it hasn't been true for quite some time.

Thanks for reading

-Markham]]> Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:31:46 -0500
On Ross Perot: he joined the board in the early 90s and began going to dealerships, talking to customers, dealers, etc, buying cars, all to gather intelligence on the marketplace and the car buying process. He was ignored by the board and quite out of frustration.

Pricing & Competition: generally speaking Toyotas and Hondas cost more than their Detroit counterparts, especially when you consider that the former don't use anywhere near as many incentives, discounts, etc.

Let's not forget that Detroit was selling many cars for a loss for most of this decade just to get them off the lot.

Perhaps that's the reason they sought out foreign parts, it wasn't so much to remain competitive as it was maintain their business model.

I.e. it's fairly easy to pay $25-$30k for a Camry or an Accord, while it's fairly easy to get a loaded competing model from Detroit for much less.

The idea that Japanese cars are cheaper is based on how the market operated in the 80s, but it hasn't been true for quite some time.

Thanks for reading

-Markham]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/122800-it-s-time-for-the-government-to-rethink-it-s-relationship-with-aig?source=feed#comment-404527 404527
At some point those derivatives have to be unwound because it doesn't make sense to leave that much risk within one company, so I think that even despite the cost to bailout AIG we don't have much choice but to unwind the derivatives as well.

Thanks for reading.


-Markham]]> Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:18:40 -0500
At some point those derivatives have to be unwound because it doesn't make sense to leave that much risk within one company, so I think that even despite the cost to bailout AIG we don't have much choice but to unwind the derivatives as well.

Thanks for reading.


-Markham]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/121545-gm-what-s-the-point-in-being-number-one-if-you-can-t-turn-a-profit?source=feed#comment-396069 396069
1) I don't hate GM or Detroit for that matter, I grew up in a household that only bought GM cars and can probably rebuild one of the 70s era Buick Elektras from scratch if I had to.

My articles are written from the perspective of what they should do to in order to thrive again and/or possibly gain my business.

There is a difference between constructive criticism and pure bashing, my articles are the former.

2) The point of this article is that for the last 10+ years GM has been #1 in market share, and has over the course of that time done nothing but bleed red ink. It's a mathematical fact.

Over that same time period Toyota wasn't #1 yet made more profits as did many smaller car makers, also a mathematical fact.

Therefore profit per car sold can easily trump market share.

3) Toyota (like many automakers) will lose money for a bit as it has to readjust operations to a marketplace that buys fewer cars, and buys lower margin cars. BUT, Toyota will find it's way to profitability relatively quickly, nor does it have the hard road ahead of it that Detroit does.

4) It's not possible to have a productive conversation about the auto industry if we're not going to be objective.

Thanks for reading.


-Markham]]> Fri, 20 Feb 2009 01:20:24 -0500
1) I don't hate GM or Detroit for that matter, I grew up in a household that only bought GM cars and can probably rebuild one of the 70s era Buick Elektras from scratch if I had to.

My articles are written from the perspective of what they should do to in order to thrive again and/or possibly gain my business.

There is a difference between constructive criticism and pure bashing, my articles are the former.

2) The point of this article is that for the last 10+ years GM has been #1 in market share, and has over the course of that time done nothing but bleed red ink. It's a mathematical fact.

Over that same time period Toyota wasn't #1 yet made more profits as did many smaller car makers, also a mathematical fact.

Therefore profit per car sold can easily trump market share.

3) Toyota (like many automakers) will lose money for a bit as it has to readjust operations to a marketplace that buys fewer cars, and buys lower margin cars. BUT, Toyota will find it's way to profitability relatively quickly, nor does it have the hard road ahead of it that Detroit does.

4) It's not possible to have a productive conversation about the auto industry if we're not going to be objective.

Thanks for reading.


-Markham]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/120881-gm-and-chrysler-is-avoiding-bankruptcy-avoiding-the-inevitable?source=feed#comment-392673 392673
If you were to go back and read my past writings on Detroit you'd notice that I've been making the efficiency argument for going on two years now. In fact the main thesis of the one you just read is that renegotiating with some of their bondholders isn't enough to give GM the efficiencies it needs to be profitable.

If I'm noting things that I think GM should do in order to be more successful, you can't characterize it as criticism for the sake of criticism. In fact in every article I've ever written critical of Detroit I've always presented my ideas on how they should do things differently, so that they can be successful in the future. It's not about criticizing GM for fun, it's about presenting my view on how they should proceed in order to be successful.

After all didn't I write in a prior article: "There is actually a good car company under the morass that is GM, and a Chapter 11 filing could allow that company to breathe without being crushed by the weight of liabilities and debts the company can't possibly service. "

seekingalpha.com/artic...

I don't advocate bankruptcy to destroy the company, I advocate bankruptcy to save it. GM without its myriad liabilities could be profitable within a short time, while the viability of its constant restructuring plans is a crap shoot at best.

Based on my own personal preferences the Germans (especially the ones from Bavaria) make cars that best suit my needs, and my preferences aren't something that can be argued, especially since I'm not obligated to buy American. In a free market the customer has the right to choose that which they like the best, and companies who would like their business should try and figure out why they're making the choices they're making, as opposed to the view that people are obligated to buy certain products over others.

Better yet I think Toyota is a great car company but I'm not interested in their products because they don't appeal to me, ditto for Honda.

I'm no longer interested in debating this with you because you seem more interested in ad hominem attacks as opposed to having a constructive debate. After all isn't it your view that people who don’t prefer American cars are in fact shallow and/or not intelligent enough to form their own opinions outside of the automotive press? If you're not willing to acknowledge my right to choose which car I spend my money on, or to admit that a foreign car may better suit what I want there is no point in discussing the topic with you.
]]> Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:55:13 -0500
If you were to go back and read my past writings on Detroit you'd notice that I've been making the efficiency argument for going on two years now. In fact the main thesis of the one you just read is that renegotiating with some of their bondholders isn't enough to give GM the efficiencies it needs to be profitable.

If I'm noting things that I think GM should do in order to be more successful, you can't characterize it as criticism for the sake of criticism. In fact in every article I've ever written critical of Detroit I've always presented my ideas on how they should do things differently, so that they can be successful in the future. It's not about criticizing GM for fun, it's about presenting my view on how they should proceed in order to be successful.

After all didn't I write in a prior article: "There is actually a good car company under the morass that is GM, and a Chapter 11 filing could allow that company to breathe without being crushed by the weight of liabilities and debts the company can't possibly service. "

seekingalpha.com/artic...

I don't advocate bankruptcy to destroy the company, I advocate bankruptcy to save it. GM without its myriad liabilities could be profitable within a short time, while the viability of its constant restructuring plans is a crap shoot at best.

Based on my own personal preferences the Germans (especially the ones from Bavaria) make cars that best suit my needs, and my preferences aren't something that can be argued, especially since I'm not obligated to buy American. In a free market the customer has the right to choose that which they like the best, and companies who would like their business should try and figure out why they're making the choices they're making, as opposed to the view that people are obligated to buy certain products over others.

Better yet I think Toyota is a great car company but I'm not interested in their products because they don't appeal to me, ditto for Honda.

I'm no longer interested in debating this with you because you seem more interested in ad hominem attacks as opposed to having a constructive debate. After all isn't it your view that people who don’t prefer American cars are in fact shallow and/or not intelligent enough to form their own opinions outside of the automotive press? If you're not willing to acknowledge my right to choose which car I spend my money on, or to admit that a foreign car may better suit what I want there is no point in discussing the topic with you.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/120881-gm-and-chrysler-is-avoiding-bankruptcy-avoiding-the-inevitable?source=feed#comment-392487 392487
This is America a nation where we believe in the free market, Detroit can be strong again by putting itself in the customer's shoes and understanding what leads them to make the decisions they make.

They can also be strong again by fixing their efficiency issues since they already have enough market share to be profitable.

However Detroit cannot fix itself by taking the approach that the customers who buy foreign are just making a misinformed mistake.

My objection to your comment has nothing to do with me, and everything to do with the fact that I believe it's the kind of thinking that got Detroit into this mess in the first place. ]]> Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:04:01 -0500
This is America a nation where we believe in the free market, Detroit can be strong again by putting itself in the customer's shoes and understanding what leads them to make the decisions they make.

They can also be strong again by fixing their efficiency issues since they already have enough market share to be profitable.

However Detroit cannot fix itself by taking the approach that the customers who buy foreign are just making a misinformed mistake.

My objection to your comment has nothing to do with me, and everything to do with the fact that I believe it's the kind of thinking that got Detroit into this mess in the first place. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/120881-gm-and-chrysler-is-avoiding-bankruptcy-avoiding-the-inevitable?source=feed#comment-392294 392294
I don't buy German cars simply because they're German I buy a particular German car based on the way it performs on the road, followed by the level of luxury.

Nothing in Chrysler's line-up is comparable as far as overall performance even though some do compare as far as straight line acceleration. The other issue is that they're using the same interiors as were in my college roommate's Dodge Neon, the resale value is abysmal and I find their cars to be gaudy at best.

Not to mention the fact that the "parts sharing" between Mercedes and Chrysler is minimal at best, and if you drive both back to back it's a vastly different driving experience.

Saturns and Malibus being based on Opels doesn't change the fact that (again) the cars don't compare to the German cars I like. I've driven plenty of GM products whilst traveling for work and I simply didn't like the car. I was always much happier when I was given a Japanese car instead.

It's not about Status symbols or wanting something just because it's German, it's about spending MY hard earned money on the car that best suits my tastes. I'm not choosing to support Germans over Americans, I'm choosing to buy the products that I enjoy the most.

It's more than a little ridiculous to claim that I would enjoy driving a Malibu as much as my BMW, simply because the former is based on an Opel I wouldn't buy either.

Buy American is not the way to help Detroit, the U.S. automakers should help themselves by producing better products.

Furthermore this discussion is rather moot since GM already sells enough cars to be profitable, they're just too inefficient to be profitable with their current level of marketshare. Hence the reason Honda is profitable with a fraction of GM's marketshare.

No offense but the high-horse approach of chiding people for choosing the products they like the most, (especially when we're talking about the product that represents people's 2nd largest expenditure) is a non starter. ]]> Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:10:40 -0500
I don't buy German cars simply because they're German I buy a particular German car based on the way it performs on the road, followed by the level of luxury.

Nothing in Chrysler's line-up is comparable as far as overall performance even though some do compare as far as straight line acceleration. The other issue is that they're using the same interiors as were in my college roommate's Dodge Neon, the resale value is abysmal and I find their cars to be gaudy at best.

Not to mention the fact that the "parts sharing" between Mercedes and Chrysler is minimal at best, and if you drive both back to back it's a vastly different driving experience.

Saturns and Malibus being based on Opels doesn't change the fact that (again) the cars don't compare to the German cars I like. I've driven plenty of GM products whilst traveling for work and I simply didn't like the car. I was always much happier when I was given a Japanese car instead.

It's not about Status symbols or wanting something just because it's German, it's about spending MY hard earned money on the car that best suits my tastes. I'm not choosing to support Germans over Americans, I'm choosing to buy the products that I enjoy the most.

It's more than a little ridiculous to claim that I would enjoy driving a Malibu as much as my BMW, simply because the former is based on an Opel I wouldn't buy either.

Buy American is not the way to help Detroit, the U.S. automakers should help themselves by producing better products.

Furthermore this discussion is rather moot since GM already sells enough cars to be profitable, they're just too inefficient to be profitable with their current level of marketshare. Hence the reason Honda is profitable with a fraction of GM's marketshare.

No offense but the high-horse approach of chiding people for choosing the products they like the most, (especially when we're talking about the product that represents people's 2nd largest expenditure) is a non starter. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/120881-gm-and-chrysler-is-avoiding-bankruptcy-avoiding-the-inevitable?source=feed#comment-392047 392047
And since I'm sure some people are curious:

I don't intend on buying a new car from anyone in this economy because the one I have works just fine, and I'm sure I can get another 2-3 years of worry few driving out of it.

But if I did buy a new car it would be German, sorry but this is America and I have the god given right to buy any car I please. I'll admit that Detroit is putting out far better vehicles than they were five years ago, but they still don't like them as much as vehicles produced by certain Bavarian companies.

If Detroit is going to survive it has to be able to survive in the free market, not via people trying to guilt their fellow citizens into buying GM just because it's American. ]]> Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:01:11 -0500
And since I'm sure some people are curious:

I don't intend on buying a new car from anyone in this economy because the one I have works just fine, and I'm sure I can get another 2-3 years of worry few driving out of it.

But if I did buy a new car it would be German, sorry but this is America and I have the god given right to buy any car I please. I'll admit that Detroit is putting out far better vehicles than they were five years ago, but they still don't like them as much as vehicles produced by certain Bavarian companies.

If Detroit is going to survive it has to be able to survive in the free market, not via people trying to guilt their fellow citizens into buying GM just because it's American. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/120881-gm-and-chrysler-is-avoiding-bankruptcy-avoiding-the-inevitable?source=feed#comment-392026 392026
Keep in mind that this number doesn't include dealer support and other liabilities related to long-term leases on factories they don't use, money paid to municipalities related to same, pension liabilities, etc. ]]> Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:53:12 -0500
Keep in mind that this number doesn't include dealer support and other liabilities related to long-term leases on factories they don't use, money paid to municipalities related to same, pension liabilities, etc. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/118134-a-nation-of-mortgage-slaves?source=feed#comment-374634 374634
I've always felt that a home is (first and foremost) the place where you live not an investment, so if you can afford your home you should just stay put and not risk the financial damage that will come from walking away.

However people who can't afford their homes in the first place are highly unlikely to benefit from any sort of loan modification, and any efforts to resist foreclosure will just delay the inevitable.

The point of the article was to inject some realism into the conversation around preventing foreclosures, as there is really little point in wasting resources to try to keep someone in a house they can't afford.

Thanks you for reading.


Markham Lee]]> Tue, 03 Feb 2009 13:36:20 -0500
I've always felt that a home is (first and foremost) the place where you live not an investment, so if you can afford your home you should just stay put and not risk the financial damage that will come from walking away.

However people who can't afford their homes in the first place are highly unlikely to benefit from any sort of loan modification, and any efforts to resist foreclosure will just delay the inevitable.

The point of the article was to inject some realism into the conversation around preventing foreclosures, as there is really little point in wasting resources to try to keep someone in a house they can't afford.

Thanks you for reading.


Markham Lee]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/113677-detroit-please-bring-back-the-stripped-car?source=feed#comment-349385 349385
I drive American cars all the time when I travel for work and I'm always quite happy to get back into my German sedan, it's not about the name plate it's the way the car performs.

If America catches up they can get my money. ]]> Thu, 08 Jan 2009 05:17:20 -0500
I drive American cars all the time when I travel for work and I'm always quite happy to get back into my German sedan, it's not about the name plate it's the way the car performs.

If America catches up they can get my money. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/113677-detroit-please-bring-back-the-stripped-car?source=feed#comment-349384 349384
That's the real problem Detroit faces as far as resale a lot of consumers would rather have a used import than a brand new American car.

I know this consumer (I've always bought Japanese or German) would rather have a 4 year old import than a brand new American car, and to be honest it isn't really about longevity - it's the simple fact that I like the styling, performance, interiors, etc, a lot better.

Speaking of which:

I would buy a Ford Mondeo if I was looking at a midsized family car, too bad it isn't sold in the U.S. and some dolt at Ford thought that the American consumer would prefer the Fusion...

...even though European customers are buying Mondeos instead of Accords.

-M]]> Thu, 08 Jan 2009 05:14:45 -0500
That's the real problem Detroit faces as far as resale a lot of consumers would rather have a used import than a brand new American car.

I know this consumer (I've always bought Japanese or German) would rather have a 4 year old import than a brand new American car, and to be honest it isn't really about longevity - it's the simple fact that I like the styling, performance, interiors, etc, a lot better.

Speaking of which:

I would buy a Ford Mondeo if I was looking at a midsized family car, too bad it isn't sold in the U.S. and some dolt at Ford thought that the American consumer would prefer the Fusion...

...even though European customers are buying Mondeos instead of Accords.

-M]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/107709-the-negative-equity-phantom-menace?source=feed#comment-314543 314543
E.g. the Zillow surveys indicating that a large % of people think that their home has either retained or gained value, despite the fact that the opposite is true?

Either way, thanks for reading


-M]]> Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:38:29 -0500
E.g. the Zillow surveys indicating that a large % of people think that their home has either retained or gained value, despite the fact that the opposite is true?

Either way, thanks for reading


-M]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/106407-the-28-33-mortgage-payment-rule-confronting-reality?source=feed#comment-308326 308326 Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:42:25 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/100867-buy-a-gm-car-get-50-shares-free?source=feed#comment-288151 288151
What say you to the fact GM was offering employee discount pricing last month in an effort to prop up sales? Isn't that the largest incentive a car company can offer?

Toyota may have been offering 0% financing to a few select customers, but let's not forget that Toyota turns a profit per car sold and GM wasn't doing that BEFORE their deep discounts.

How about the fact that you can still lease a Japanese or German car and the American car makers are discontinuing their leasing programs?

If the demand for the Malibu is so high that it is selling for a higher price than the Camry (I've seen no evidence of this), how do you explain the fact that the Camry is outselling the Malibu by nearly 2.5:1? Per a recent WSJ article GM sold 16k Malibus in July and Toyota sold 42k.

I seriously doubt recent numbers would show much of a difference.....

You may find my articles to be poorly researched, however I don't see any data that supports your view of the world and would be happy to review it if you would point me to it.

As always, thanks for reading


-M]]> Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:48:37 -0400
What say you to the fact GM was offering employee discount pricing last month in an effort to prop up sales? Isn't that the largest incentive a car company can offer?

Toyota may have been offering 0% financing to a few select customers, but let's not forget that Toyota turns a profit per car sold and GM wasn't doing that BEFORE their deep discounts.

How about the fact that you can still lease a Japanese or German car and the American car makers are discontinuing their leasing programs?

If the demand for the Malibu is so high that it is selling for a higher price than the Camry (I've seen no evidence of this), how do you explain the fact that the Camry is outselling the Malibu by nearly 2.5:1? Per a recent WSJ article GM sold 16k Malibus in July and Toyota sold 42k.

I seriously doubt recent numbers would show much of a difference.....

You may find my articles to be poorly researched, however I don't see any data that supports your view of the world and would be happy to review it if you would point me to it.

As always, thanks for reading


-M]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/99405-weighing-the-government-action-options?source=feed#comment-279435 279435
That money should go towards infrastructure projects (50%) and the rest given to taxpayers as a special refund.

The banks (as r3ph said) should also just start raising the yields to 7-8% to raise capital, because at this point they're subprime borrowers so they should have to pay subprime rates for cash.

In fact the 7-8% interest rates on CDs coupled with unlimited FDIC insurance would basically solve the problem as investors would run towards that kind of yield right now.

I know I would.

Thanks for reading everyone.

-M]]> Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:02:34 -0400
That money should go towards infrastructure projects (50%) and the rest given to taxpayers as a special refund.

The banks (as r3ph said) should also just start raising the yields to 7-8% to raise capital, because at this point they're subprime borrowers so they should have to pay subprime rates for cash.

In fact the 7-8% interest rates on CDs coupled with unlimited FDIC insurance would basically solve the problem as investors would run towards that kind of yield right now.

I know I would.

Thanks for reading everyone.

-M]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/98318-a-satirical-breakdown-of-the-bailout-plan-s-expenditures?source=feed#comment-272072 272072 Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:04:18 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/97342-bailouts-misunderstanding-the-moral-hazard?source=feed#comment-264671 264671
Besides in my view the situation should be handled like FDIC receivership: "Sorry but we're MAKING YOU do this, you will suffer greatly, get over it"

But maybe I'm just being an overly Calvinist bear again, it's happened before

-M]]> Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:30:18 -0400
Besides in my view the situation should be handled like FDIC receivership: "Sorry but we're MAKING YOU do this, you will suffer greatly, get over it"

But maybe I'm just being an overly Calvinist bear again, it's happened before

-M]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/94571-the-weekend-american-capitalism-died?source=feed#comment-249539 249539
As an armchair QB I'm not saying that the Government shouldn't have stepped in, because Fannie & Freddie collapsing would've had a cataclysmic impact on our economy. What I am saying that is that various policies/actions have been killing capitalism for decades, the takeover of the Mortgage GSEs was merely the sign, not the cause per se.

SO what would I have done different?

Managed the GSEs better and reigned them in years ago especially during the credit crunch, as opposed to recent policies that had them expanding their investment activities despite their suspect capitalization levels.

Better managed the banking system during the housing boom, especially with respect to lending standards.

The credit crisis could've easily had been prevented if people had been willing to make inconvenient decisions, as opposed to telling taxpayers how great things are and celebrating faux housing wealth.

-M]]> Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:16:21 -0400
As an armchair QB I'm not saying that the Government shouldn't have stepped in, because Fannie & Freddie collapsing would've had a cataclysmic impact on our economy. What I am saying that is that various policies/actions have been killing capitalism for decades, the takeover of the Mortgage GSEs was merely the sign, not the cause per se.

SO what would I have done different?

Managed the GSEs better and reigned them in years ago especially during the credit crunch, as opposed to recent policies that had them expanding their investment activities despite their suspect capitalization levels.

Better managed the banking system during the housing boom, especially with respect to lending standards.

The credit crisis could've easily had been prevented if people had been willing to make inconvenient decisions, as opposed to telling taxpayers how great things are and celebrating faux housing wealth.

-M]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/93894-browser-wars-what-are-they-good-for?source=feed#comment-245721 245721
This turned out to be a pipe dream as the winner of the browser war didn't benefit financially in the end, and now finds itself investing more in the browser to keep up with an upstart.

The newest entrant in the war has other things in mind and could "conceivably" benefit, but what is more likely to happen is that multiple companies will spend tens of millions of dollars to develop products that will converge (in a sense) in terms of capabilities and in the end, see little benefit.

14 years after Netscape and no software company has really been able to show the financial advantage of having the dominant browser.

My techie side is excited in terms of seeing new technology, but my more practical investor side is rather unimpressed.


-M


]]> Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:29:09 -0400
This turned out to be a pipe dream as the winner of the browser war didn't benefit financially in the end, and now finds itself investing more in the browser to keep up with an upstart.

The newest entrant in the war has other things in mind and could "conceivably" benefit, but what is more likely to happen is that multiple companies will spend tens of millions of dollars to develop products that will converge (in a sense) in terms of capabilities and in the end, see little benefit.

14 years after Netscape and no software company has really been able to show the financial advantage of having the dominant browser.

My techie side is excited in terms of seeing new technology, but my more practical investor side is rather unimpressed.


-M


]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/93191-record-companies-starting-to-shun-itunes?source=feed#comment-241834 241834
1) If the record companies die then we won't have any music to buy.

2) I've personally supervised the production of CDs in runs of less than 1,000 for small artists, where the cost was under $1/CD often in the $0.80 range.

If you're running off millions of CDs, have your own facilities, etc, the cost is undoubtedly lower.

3) The analysis is a hypothetical to be sure, but it does illustrate why many artists and the record companies prefer to sell albums.

It would be different if iTunes sold more albums than single songs or a given artists, as the $7/sale the record company received would be close to a CD sale and would be "good enough" to keep everyone happy.

4) I don't disagree with the fact that many people prefer to buy singles and it does favor the consumer, just noting that eventually it could kill the producer of the content you're paying for.

5) The Camry example is meant to indicate order of magnitude i.e. selling 200k CDs generates more $ than 2.2 million digital downloads of single track.

Anyway, we all agree a new model is needed, we all agree that selling albums is more profitable, we agree that consumers prefer track downloads.

BUT

What kind of model allows the record companies to survive and make consumers happy at the same time? Right now both goals are at odds with each other.

And if the record companies die?

There won't be much of anything new to download

I suppose I should probably point that I've never bought a digital download in my life, I use rhapsody to listen to music at work or occasionally drop a song on my Mp3 player, but to buy a digital track?

Never.

I always buy CDs prefer I like the sound quality better, but I suppose that's a topic for another discussion.


As always thanks for reading.


-Markham]]> Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:58:44 -0400
1) If the record companies die then we won't have any music to buy.

2) I've personally supervised the production of CDs in runs of less than 1,000 for small artists, where the cost was under $1/CD often in the $0.80 range.

If you're running off millions of CDs, have your own facilities, etc, the cost is undoubtedly lower.

3) The analysis is a hypothetical to be sure, but it does illustrate why many artists and the record companies prefer to sell albums.

It would be different if iTunes sold more albums than single songs or a given artists, as the $7/sale the record company received would be close to a CD sale and would be "good enough" to keep everyone happy.

4) I don't disagree with the fact that many people prefer to buy singles and it does favor the consumer, just noting that eventually it could kill the producer of the content you're paying for.

5) The Camry example is meant to indicate order of magnitude i.e. selling 200k CDs generates more $ than 2.2 million digital downloads of single track.

Anyway, we all agree a new model is needed, we all agree that selling albums is more profitable, we agree that consumers prefer track downloads.

BUT

What kind of model allows the record companies to survive and make consumers happy at the same time? Right now both goals are at odds with each other.

And if the record companies die?

There won't be much of anything new to download

I suppose I should probably point that I've never bought a digital download in my life, I use rhapsody to listen to music at work or occasionally drop a song on my Mp3 player, but to buy a digital track?

Never.

I always buy CDs prefer I like the sound quality better, but I suppose that's a topic for another discussion.


As always thanks for reading.


-Markham]]>