Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As i do not have the inside track of the meetings between this administration and or congress, i can't deny or agree. What I will say is, the bailout discussions or should i say the money begging betweens these Auto giants began in 2008. Ford was the only company that bowed out because they preferred to depend on their investers, their product and the consumers.
So now your pleading ignorance of all of the news stories, the loan to equity conversions, to equity to voting right conversions, the firing of the CEO etc.. your answer to all of this is, you simply dont know about it..
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackandproud
GM and Chrysler, being in control again of their own failings decided instead to depend on the government and over promised to skim the fat and indeed did nothing. So in my opinion, GM stock taking a nose dive began when they decided to show up to the welfare line wearing armani suits and rolexs watches.
Gm is not in control of their own failures, the plan is to put taxpayers in control of it, i.e. through common stockholder equity. Have you read up at all on whats going on? Your previous response indicates the answer is no. Criticizing someone wearing a suit and rolex is nothing but class envy, if you didnt buy a car because thats what they wore, then thats pretty shallow
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackandproud
If i was an investor and i recognized this type of disregard of the bottom line, i would be running faster than a hooker in bible class too.
They are, and some of us are profiting from it, in a HUGE way. Thats the point.. investors dont want to be investing in a company where there is no bottom to the bottom. Unlike Ford, who has similar sales as GM, they have no problems raising capital, they sold several billion dollars worth of stock this week alone, and their stock is up.. not down like Fords. The only difference between the two companies is ownership.. Ford = privately owned by investors with a board of directors working on the bottom line to benefit the investors, GM = who the hell knows who owns it, and what they are now working on..
I used to work at a large dealership, was never provided "training" but you bring up some interesting costs that I havent thought about.
They heavily subsidize things like mechanic training.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
The financing of the cars is an accounts receivable from the dealers to the car companies, not an expense. Yes, they have to front the money, and then send the cars to the dealerships, but the dealerships essentially "rent" the cars until they are sold.
you are forgetting opportunity costs, my friend. Plus it is tying up a whole lot of capital subsidizing those low interest loans which no doubt the automakers would rather not have to do. Tell me, do you think a large dealership selling several thousand cars a month is a better credit risk then a dealership selling hundred a month? Might that mean said dealership would qualify, on its own, for a lower interest rate on loans and so the total amount of subsidized credit extended by automakers could there by be reduced? Doing this would make the parent operations less capital intensive and thus more profitable.
So would you much rather the government funnel even more tax payers money into these two companies? GM have been struggling for years, well before even George Bush or Clinton. The collapse of GM and Chrysler is by their own doing. Its easy to blame the unions, but the ultimately failure is by their refusal to keep up with the design competition of the international car makers. Chrysler stepped up too late with the 300, too little too late.
I think they should have been allowed to go bankrupt years ago. We've been pumping bailout $$ into them since at least the 1970's.
Dealerships are privately owned - well, at least those that are franchised.
Not sure what the cost is to GM by a franchise but would think it would be better to decrease/eliminate/restructure these costs rather than telling a hard-working American that you cannot sell our cars anymore so you have to shut down.
They heavily subsidize things like mechanic training.
You mean mechanic training, required by the car companies, in order to justify the normally higher costs to have dealerships make repairs? You mean these dealerships dont pay for these costs in order to profit from the repair of vehicles they sell? The truth is these dealership pay Ford/GM etc to have "licensed" mechanics work in their shop, the subsidy on that one goes from the dealership, not to them..
I must have missed something on the news.
What is the talk on here about the government floating/supporting/giving money to the franchises?
I've never heard about that.
The Bush/Obama tried a little Keynes on these auto companies by injecting gubmint money. It failed. Keynesianism is voodoo witchdoctoring. Always has been. Always will be.
Well, it sounds like the so called conservatives are crawling out of the wood-work to blame Obama for putting these dealers out of the business. Are they serious in saying that the government should carry the dealers? Why should the tax-payer float them? They can't have it both ways. One day they complain that the government is intruding in private business, and the next day they complain that they are not intruding.
?? Did I misread ???
Other poster said the franchises do NOT receive govt money.
Dealers get sales incentives from the dealer for selling so many vehicles - trips, bonuses, etc.
Here's an idea - do AWAY with incentives.
So now your pleading ignorance of all of the news stories, the loan to equity conversions, to equity to voting right conversions, the firing of the CEO etc.. your answer to all of this is, you simply dont know about it..
Unlike what you appear to do on this board, i do not assume or speak for anyone. Your asking me to deny what this President and Congress is attempting to do. My response is again is the same, i will not deny or agree, I then followed that up with MY OPINION. Show me where i stated that I WILL PLEAD IGNORANCE. These people knew EXACTLY what they were getting themselves into when they accepted MY tax dollars.
Gm is not in control of their own failures, the plan is to put taxpayers in control of it, i.e. through common stockholder equity. Have you read up at all on whats going on? Your previous response indicates the answer is no. Criticizing someone wearing a suit and rolex is nothing but class envy, if you didnt buy a car because thats what they wore, then thats pretty shallow
Have your read up on whats been going on with GM and Chrysler back in 2008 when they first started begging for money. My statement was "GM was in control of their own failures" meaning before the government stepped up and stepped in, right or wrong. Was it the government that thinned GM's profits? Was it the government to cause GM to spend like their was no bottom? Who was it that sat across from congress last year begging for money. ...uhm GM and Chrysler. Why don't you stop trying to ad-lib and being so condoscendin and have an actual discussion.
My description of their suits and watches was just an example to describe their disregard of their financial issues. I could care less what they wear or what they have. So again, you prefer to be condoscending instead of having a discussion.
They are, and some of us are profiting from it, in a HUGE way. Thats the point.. investors dont want to be investing in a company where there is no bottom to the bottom. Unlike Ford, who has similar sales as GM, they have no problems raising capital, they sold several billion dollars worth of stock this week alone, and their stock is up.. not down like Fords. The only difference between the two companies is ownership.. Ford = privately owned by investors with a board of directors working on the bottom line to benefit the investors, GM = who the hell knows who owns it, and what they are now working on..
GM and Chrysler have been in control of their own failures for years, NOT the Government.
?? Did I misread ???
Other poster said the franchises do NOT receive govt money.
Dealers get sales incentives from the dealer for selling so many vehicles - trips, bonuses, etc.
Here's an idea - do AWAY with incentives.
They don't, but it sounds like the Obama hate crowd complain that Obama is letting the dealers go out of business. It sounds like they expected Obama to bail them out?
So who is the socialist, Obama or them?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
