GM turns down $3B Loan from Canada

[Rob490]

GM has already received $9.4 billion in loans from the US government in an effort to stave off collapse. The Canadian government offered to loan the US automaker another $3 billion, but apparently GM doesn't want the Loonies at the moment. GM turned down the Canadian government's generous offer (for now), instead focusing its efforts on "self-help actions to conserve capital." GM is also working with stakeholders to cut deals in accordance with the automaker's pact with the US government.

Company spokesman Stew Low isn't counting out drawing funds from the Canadian government, stating that GM could "still require the offered assistance, as our 'self-help' efforts are for the short term." In the mean time, Canadian spokesman Darren Cunningham told the Windsor Star that GM still intends to draw up a proposal to Canada and submit it by February 20. In order to draw the $3 billion some point in the future, the plan would have to include the lowering of wages to stay competitive with Japanese automakers. Chrysler is still in negotiations with the Canadian Government for its share of the

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/01/25/g...adian-bailout/





You would think with the trouble GM is in they would take advantage over any money they get

Sometimes i question GMs decisions

EDITED: Added text

[Marvelous]

I wouldn't have done it either.

[The_Blur]

Now they won't get it if they need it later for being cocky. That was not wise. They should have accepted it as a buffer between bankruptcy and profitability.

[TheStig]

Taking a loan isn't going to save them. They need to cut Buick/GMC, get the UAW down to normal wages and benefits, and market their remaining vehicles like hell.

[GTAHVIT]

Less debt is still a good thing right?

[CanadianCamaro]

Well... The Harper Conservative budget just got a little better. Take $3B out of the estimated deficit next year. Of course dumb-ass Jack Layton and his band of coalition idiots will still say that they could run the country in this recession without a deficit. Because they know where the magic tree that grows money is. Gesh...

Anyway - Yes, less debt at high interest rates is a good thing. Cut costs is the goal and the labour expense line is a pretty good place to start.

[TheCaptain]

Originally Posted by TheStig

Taking a loan isn't going to save them. They need to cut Buick/GMC, get the UAW down to normal wages and benefits, and market their remaining vehicles like hell.

Uh... not to turn this into a big argument, but Buick and GMC are some of GMs bestsellers. They would be incredibly stupid to cut them. Like stated before, (on this site even) they should cut Saturn, Hummer, SAAB, and slash Pontiac into a niche.

[t3chfr3ak]

What the problem is with corporations and governments these days is that they believe that in order to get out of debt they have to get into debt. That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. If you get into high debt, do you go apply for more credit cards and loans so that you can transfer your debt I just dont understand whats going on. You have companies on the brink of collapse, asking for more money to stay afloat? All this and yet they are still paying their corporate heads astounding amounts of money while they lay middle class workers off. What ever happened to cutbacks from top to bottom? Wouldnt that make more sense? And make the cutbacks higher as it goes up the corporate ladder, since they can afford more to be cutback. It just makes sense, doesnt it? Sorry for the rant.

[RT21]

Originally Posted by gtahvit

Less debt is still a good thing right?

+1

[RT21]

Originally Posted by TheCaptain

Uh... not to turn this into a big argument, but Buick and GMC are some of GMs bestsellers. They would be incredibly stupid to cut them. Like stated before, (on this site even) they should cut Saturn, Hummer, SAAB, and slash Pontiac into a niche.

They had a SAAB in Epcot too...it was SWEET! Convertable. Just sayin.

[RT21]

Originally Posted by t3chfr3ak

What ever happened to cutbacks from top to bottom? Wouldnt that make more sense? And make the cutbacks higher as it goes up the corporate ladder, since they can afford more to be cutback. It just makes sense, doesnt it?

To add to that, what is with the loser companies paying the CEO clown that were instrumental in their collapse more money so they won't leave? +1

[kylepo]

Originally Posted by t3chfr3ak

What the problem is with corporations and governments these days is that they believe that in order to get out of debt they have to get into debt. That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. If you get into high debt, do you go apply for more credit cards and loans so that you can transfer your debt I just dont understand whats going on. You have companies on the brink of collapse, asking for more money to stay afloat? All this and yet they are still paying their corporate heads astounding amounts of money while they lay middle class workers off. What ever happened to cutbacks from top to bottom? Wouldnt that make more sense? And make the cutbacks higher as it goes up the corporate ladder, since they can afford more to be cutback. It just makes sense, doesnt it? Sorry for the rant.

so will all the union workers work for zip like all the heads of the big three are doing????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????



didnt think so. And GM not talking money from canada its not being cocky at all. Its not worth it for 3billion do have to deal with the demands from two national governments.

[Ject]

Originally Posted by kylepo

so will all the union workers work for zip like all the heads of the big three are doing????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????



didnt think so. And GM not talking money from canada its not being cocky at all. Its not worth it for 3billion do have to deal with the demands from two national governments.

Can we say Rude?

I actually agreed with his post about Cutting from the top... Yes their Unions are massive bloated.. but Cutting someone from the top thats making as much as say.. 100 workers? Is very reasonable.

Here in Wichita Kansas.. being the air capital of the world (atleast for now still) They are trying to cut high up people in the Aircraft manufacturing business as well as with laying off middle class workers.... but With cutting high ups, they don't have to lay off as many middle class.

A Big problem is all these Multi-million dollar CEO's these big companies have..

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by t3chfr3ak

What the problem is with corporations and governments these days is that they believe that in order to get out of debt they have to get into debt. That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. If you get into high debt, do you go apply for more credit cards and loans so that you can transfer your debt I just dont understand whats going on. You have companies on the brink of collapse, asking for more money to stay afloat?

In GM's case, it's called a bridge loan for a reason. They are reorganizing their corporate structure to turn a profit at VERY low industry sales numbers. They are embedding the plans to pay off these loans in their financial plans. It's simply the least dangerous action they feel they can take. And with so many jobs, and an entire Industry on the brink, not just one company...it's not wise not to let the biggest/second biggest fail.

Originally Posted by t3chfr3ak

All this and yet they are still paying their corporate heads astounding amounts of money while they lay middle class workers off. What ever happened to cutbacks from top to bottom? Wouldnt that make more sense? And make the cutbacks higher as it goes up the corporate ladder, since they can afford more to be cutback. It just makes sense, doesnt it? Sorry for the rant.

They have taken cuts. Wagoner will be working for a dollar, so his entire income is tied to the shares of GM he owns. And upper-management has taken (if memory serves) some 50% pay cuts and the like. Everyone's being asked to give this this instance. Frankly -- when you look at how the Financial institutions saw fit to handle their assistance...they could take a few pointers from GM, and Chrysler...

Originally Posted by RT21

To add to that, what is with the loser companies paying the CEO clown that were instrumental in their collapse more money so they won't leave? +1

Depending on the situation, it could very well be that the CEO in question knows too much about the company to replace him/her on a whim and expect to survive.
But I'll assume you're not talking about Wagoner...hate to get into that discussion again.