GM headed backwards?

[truth411]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

Current profit isn't the issue. Confidence in future profits is. I agree wholeheartedly that GM's cars are better than ever and if they can keep it up, they'll be just fine. However, a lot of the development that lead to these great cars was government subsidized. That's not to say they won't continue to do well, again these are just things that need to be proven to skeptical investors as the recent bankruptcy drives people to distrust more than trust. I'll hold off on addressing financials and fundamentals as I'm not super up to date on GM's at the moment, but I'll comment on those in a few days. I've been searching for the next F (made me the big bucks ) to put a nice chunk of change in and surprisingly, Mitsubishi is in the lead right now for me, but I am considering all the options and researching GM as well.

Don't know what products you are refering to. But the cars and trucks they have now been in the pipeline before bankruptcy. The CTS, Equinox, Malibu, Srx, Lacrosse, Regal etc...

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by KXRM

Because he is wrong. To draw this kind of conclusion shows a severe lack of understanding of the automotive business and what makes a product sell.

Close, but no dice. I believe the analysts interpreted his statement in a completely wrong way. By saying that GM needs to start "acting like a consumer driven company," of which every company is ultimately a "consumer driven" company, he is only saying that their "can" needs to be the "can" people want to buy. I.e., An engineer can make any vehicle, but only certain engineers can make certain vehicles that consumers want to buy.

[DGthe3]

I think I know the reason why the coke analogy was made. Around the time of the bankruptcy proceedings, when they were making their case for keeping GMC, there was a converstion between a member of the task force and an exec (might have been Bob Lutz)
"Aren't they pretty much just Chevrolets?"
"Yes"
"But you make more money on them?"
"Yes"
"So whats the difference, marketing?"
"What do you think coca-cola is?"

Thats the gist of it anyway, I've probably got some of the details wrong but they're beside the point. At any rate, I would imagine that this little conversation became a bit of an inside joke at the upper levels of GM.

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by truth411

Don't know what products you are refering to. But the cars and trucks they have now been in the pipeline before bankruptcy. The CTS, Equinox, Malibu, Srx, Lacrosse, Regal etc...

"Been in the pipeline" doesn't mean completed and ready for production. You think it's free after they get the idea? How many of those products would have seen daylight, or even a production-ready model, without government subsidization? Zip. What company isn't doing well after basically selling $52 billion of restricted stock that didn't exist before? That's why current sales figures are not a good judge of long-term profitability. They need to be able to maintain their profitability. Now it's very possible they will, but using their most recent figures as proof that they're going to continue to do well is just not logical. That's why people are being so critical of management and every little move that they make.

[KJinni]

Originally Posted by King Sun

I guess you haven't turned on faux news lately

I like how you're so closed-minded that you assume since I dissed MSNBC that I watch Fox News instead.

The world isn't black and white anymore. We have color TV now.

[Number 3]

Seems to be a lot of opinions based on other peoples opinions in this thread.

I read a lot of articles latley with flaming headlines about GM and for the most part they are simply supposition or what ifs that have no facts or figures behind them.

Go one level deeper and you'll understand the rebate issue. I posted it earlier.

Go one level deeper and you'll see what was impacted by the bankruptcy. Many of those you won't see yet. And most of those were set in place by Bob Lutz and Rick Wagoner, not Ackerson.

From an enthusiasts point of view, some of his comments are inflamatory. The Camaro is not just "a consumer product". It creates passion well beyond that and I'm pretty sure he understands that. But hey, I only get to see the decisions being made under his leadership that most of you won't see for another 3 years. Any car you see this year or next has Bob and Rick's influence. At this point Ackerson could only tweak it.

So to say GM is in trouble TODAY based on anything Ackerson is doing is very short sighted.

But like most people in the news, they are judged by sound bites as much as actions. And since you can't see his actions all you have left are quotations to judge him by. And the sound bites I get internally indicate why he is successful business leader. But the public doesn't get to hear those.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that I work for a woman who works for a guy who works for a woman who works for Ackerson. And I am unable to tell you what direction that leadership is taking us in or the products that are a result of that leadership. I like my job and those latter of those would cost me that immediately. So I understand that my opinion is probably of little value in this discussion. Just hoping to drive to a more fact driven discusson.

Also, just another point, Mullaly isn't a car guy either. Ford is in the position they are in because he is a great business leader, not because he came in and redid Ford's product plans.

Another 2 cents.

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Seems to be a lot of opinions based on other peoples opinions in this thread.

I read a lot of articles latley with flaming headlines about GM and for the most part they are simply supposition or what ifs that have no facts or figures behind them.

Go one level deeper and you'll understand the rebate issue. I posted it earlier.

Go one level deeper and you'll see what was impacted by the bankruptcy. Many of those you won't see yet. And most of those were set in place by Bob Lutz and Rick Wagoner, not Ackerson.

From an enthusiasts point of view, some of his comments are inflamatory. The Camaro is not just "a consumer product". It creates passion well beyond that and I'm pretty sure he understands that. But hey, I only get to see the decisions being made under his leadership that most of you won't see for another 3 years. Any car you see this year or next has Bob and Rick's influence. At this point Ackerson could only tweak it.

So to say GM is in trouble TODAY based on anything Ackerson is doing is very short sighted.

But like most people in the news, they are judged by sound bites as much as actions. And since you can't see his actions all you have left are quotations to judge him by. And the sound bites I get internally indicate why he is successful business leader. But the public doesn't get to hear those.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that I work for a woman who works for a guy who works for a woman who works for Ackerson. And I am unable to tell you what direction that leadership is taking us in or the products that are a result of that leadership. I like my job and those latter of those would cost me that immediately. So I understand that my opinion is probably of little value in this discussion. Just hoping to drive to a more fact driven discusson.

Also, just another point, Mullaly isn't a car guy either. Ford is in the position they are in because he is a great business leader, not because he came in and redid Ford's product plans.

Another 2 cents.

I agree with you. However, Mullaly started his career as an engineer for boeing, not management, and he IS a car guy.

[Brokinarrow]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

I agree with you. However, Mullaly started his career as an engineer for boeing, not management, and he IS a car guy.

He may be INTO cars, but he hasn't worked in the automotive industry before joining Ford. Believe that's what Number 3 was getting at.

And Number 3, as usual you make very good points. Lots of American's these days are very short sighted... I'll wait to see the quality of products coming out of a company before I judge them.

[1bad65]

Originally Posted by truth411

I am sure glad we have Ford fans such as yourself which represents the epitome of being objective.

So was the guy who wrote the article in question a Ford fan too?

[truth411]

Originally Posted by 1bad65

So was the guy who wrote the article in question a Ford fan too?

nice try on trying to change the subject, you asserted that anyone who does not judge GM based on there stock prices thats only been on the market for a few months, and ignore long term and profitability is just a blind Fanboy. With all due respect, thats rediculous and that goes for all stocks no matter the company. So who's the Fanboy??

As per the article, it has already have been menchion on this forum that if you break it down most of GM incentives is for Full Size Trucks, which is the oldest of the Big 3. When the New Silverado/Sierra come out for the 2013 MY (followed by the next Tahoe/suburban) those incentives will obviously be extremely reduced. Have you check on the supposed incentives on cars like the Camaro, Regal, Lacrosse etc... it paints a very different picture. Your just seeing what you want to see, and calling anyone who speaks other wise a fanboy. IMVHO thats what Fanboys do so look in the mirror.

[1bad65]

Originally Posted by truth411

Your just seeing what you want to see, and calling anyone who speaks other wise a fanboy. IMVHO thats what Fanboys do so look in the mirror.

No, I'm seeing what was said in the article that got this thread started. I'm also seeing that GM stock is not doing what the 'experts' here were saying it would do before the IPO. And I'm also seeing that GM promoted the genius who championed the Aztek.

I'm also remembering that I was one of those who said GM's stock was overpriced/inflated when the IPO happened. But hey, what do I know?

So guys like you can call names all day long. You can also accuse anyone who isn't saying that everything is all rosy is either biased, or paid off, or anti-GM, or a Ford fanboy. But it still wont change the facts.

[bob vogel]

Originally Posted by Scott@Bjorn3D

Does it really matter, the world comes to an end next year.

...you know what it's going to end today for some people. so have some fun while you can.

[King Sun]

Originally Posted by KJinni

I like how you're so closed-minded that you assume since I dissed MSNBC that I watch Fox News instead.

The world isn't black and white anymore. We have color TV now.

where did msnbc come from? your the one doing the assuming here

[truth411]

Originally Posted by 1bad65

No, I'm seeing what was said in the article that got this thread started. I'm also seeing that GM stock is not doing what the 'experts' here were saying it would do before the IPO. And I'm also seeing that GM promoted the genius who championed the Aztek.

I'm also remembering that I was one of those who said GM's stock was overpriced/inflated when the IPO happened. But hey, what do I know?

So guys like you can call names all day long. You can also accuse anyone who isn't saying that everything is all rosy is either biased, or paid off, or anti-GM, or a Ford fanboy. But it still wont change the facts.

Did you even read my post?
Fact #1 The Article did not menchion where the Incentives was being spent, and thats its on Full Size Trucks, not really cars. And you ignored that info that was included in this thread to clarify what the article overlooked. If you were not Bias then you would have taken that info into consideration and not ignore it (because when you include all the facts it paints a different picture) The article is not the Bible.

Fact#2 I or anyone else in this thread called no one any names , but YOU DID!!! OH the irony, dont try and make yourself some kind of victim lol.

Fact #3 This goes for all companys, anyone judgeing a company based on stocks that only been on the market for a few months is being totaly premature and jumping the gun to soon. If thats how anyone invest in the stock market your going to loose more money then gain. I'd Give GM a solid 5 years before makeing any conclusions.

Fact #4 As long as GM keep pumping out Great cars and trucks it looks like they will (ATS, 6 gen Camaro, next gen equinox, next gen CTS, next gen Full Size Trucks etc...) they should be fine and investors will gladly come around seeing that GM is continuing to be profitable but that takes time not a few months. Its just that everybody is real skeptical right now, and thats totaly understandable. When the 2013 MY Full size trucks come those big incentives will be extremely reduced.

Fact #5 you will probaly ignore this whole post and continue search for any article that paints GM in a bad light THAT DOES NOT GIVE OUT ALL THE INFO inorder to do it. Others will search for news on the internet that never critize Gm on anything, I don't see how your extreme justifies the other. But at the end of the Day, GM is not in that bad of a position and from a vehicle chasis stand point they are stronger than Ford and Chysler.