GM posts $9.6B 4Q loss, burns through $6.2B cash

[tsturbo]

You're right, the "Detroit 3" are selling cars - but ultimately you can hardly attribute their 50 year decline to anything but a lot of people don't want their cars. From 48.3% market share in the 60's to 19.1% in May 2008 (and probably lower today) with annual US sales ranging from 10 to 17 million/yr - would translate to 3 to 5 million car buyers have walked away from GM. That's a lot of people who clearly don't want their cars.

Noting that all automakers are doing poorly right now or that GM is selling some cars, is missing the point and avoiding the underlying issues.

Few if any Americans are happy about not buying American cars. After putting out clearly inferior cars decade after decade, you can't expect us to spend our hard earned dollars just to support Detroit 3 autoworkers who make more in wages & benefits than most of us, along with highly paid management who have gotten it wrong for 50 years. Buying a Honda, Toyota or Nissan also supports American autoworkers in many cases too.

How GM Lost Its Sales Crown to Toyota - BusinessWeek

Right on!

 

[ziggy29]

I think one of the first things that needs to be addressed (among other things) is a way to reassure consumers that their warranty will be safe and honored. I'd sooner the government work with GM to provide some warranty assurance than continue to hand them mountains of cash to burn. That might get at least some sales back and slow the burn rate.

 

[ERD50]

I think one of the first things that needs to be addressed (among other things) is a way to reassure consumers that their warranty will be safe and honored. I'd sooner the government work with GM to provide some warranty assurance than continue to hand them mountains of cash to burn. That might get at least some sales back and slow the burn rate.

I agree 100%. I think this could be something that the govt could do that probably meets my criteria for govt involvement:

1) The govt is probably the only one who *could* do it.
2) It could be for the "common good". That is, it is a confidence issue in GM, and this warrenty assurance could build that confidence, and probably for very litttle cost. The govt wouldn't be providing the warranty, just "warantying" the waranty (if that makes sense).

Im not a lawyer, but this is the kind of thing that I would think would come out of bankruptcy proceedings. I don't know if there is legal precedence for taking action like that outside of court-controlled bankruptcy, but I don't know much about that.

Hey erd, whatever. You go buy your silverado and focus, I could really care less. What I do not want, is my hard earned tax dollars going to support this company. Obviously you have a vested intrest or ulterior motive. You cannot stomach the fact that GM is sinking and sinking fast and your going down with the ship.

Wrong on all counts.

In fact, any vested interest I have is as a taxpayer, so just like you I'd prefer to see them go bankrupt rather than having the govt throw money into them. A BK just might allow some of their underlying problems to get fixed. If not, and they fail, well that's life.

The reason I challenge you on your "no one is buying their cars" is because is is an untrue statement. It adds nothing to the conversation here, in fact it detracts from it as it is just noise that I need to sift through to get to meaningful statements. And when you are challenged, you drag other 'stuff' into the thread.

You can have your opinion on the quality and appeal of GM cars, this is a free country. But please don't fill the thread with noise.

Thank you.

-ERD50

 

[Gearhead Jim]

To say "no one is buying their cars" is obviously an overstatement, but it hints at the underlying problem- millions of people have chosen to buy a Honda or Toyota instead of something from GM. I'll spare you the details, but I'm one of them with good reason.

 

[Midpack]

...indicates to me that there is an emotional component involved...

et tu, Brute?

 

[HFWR]

et tu, Brute?

I haven't called anyone "fanboy" yet...

I think GM's (and the UAW's) problems are well documented. But stating that "no one wants their cars", or something to that affect, adds more heat than light... Plus, what's this, the fifth or sixth GM-bashing thread?

 

[FinanceDude]

I think GM's (and the UAW's) problems are well documented. But stating that "no one wants their cars", or something to that affect, adds more heat than light... Plus, what's this, the fifth or sixth GM-bashing thread?

Hey, they deserve it.........

 

[haha]

The reason I challenge you on your "no one is buying their cars" is because is is an untrue statement. It adds nothing to the conversation here, in fact it detracts from it as it is just noise that I need to sift through to get to meaningful statements. And when you are challenged, you drag other 'stuff' into the thread.

Some threads are full of declarations totally out of step with the facts that can be gathered.

It seems that some people feel that because they have some vague feeling about something that it must correspond to the outside world. Not so!

Facts are fairly easy to find and vet today. Why not do that?

There are many reasons why GM might be losing market share aside from unpopular cars. They dominated when there were essentially 3 car companies selling in America. When other quality manufacturers come in that had to change.

I don't understand why someone would post obviously untrue or distorted assertions. Often it might come from some emotionally compelling agenda on the part of the poster, sometimes from simple incomplete information. These types can be differentiated by the posters response to a limited, fact based comment.

If he comes back with more BS, or other distorted manipulative arguments he has shown that he is operating on an agenda. It might be personal, it might be commercial.

But I don't pay any more attention to what that sort of poster has to say.

Ha

 

[FinanceDude]

Some threads are full of declarations totally out of step with the facts that can be gathered.

It seems that some people feel that because they have some vague feeling about something that it must correspond to the outside world. Not so!

Facts are fairly easy to find and vet today. Why not do that?

Because in today's society, with the easy access to the Internet, "experts" are created.........

There are many reasons why GM might be losing market share aside from unpopular cars. They dominated when there were essentially 3 car companies selling in America. When other quality manufacturers come in that had to change.

They have been losing market share over a 30 year timeframe, but didn't adjust to that reality. GM has NEVER made money on small cars, which is where the Asian carmakers killed them first, and have moved on to their bread and butter, SUVs.........

But I don't pay any more attention to what that sort of poster has to say.Ha

I notice "cardude" has smartly stayed out of this thread. There's a guy living the nightmare, not some nobody spouting facts. It as a very sad and emotional day for me when I bought the first car for ME that was Japanese. I was a domestic car homer forever.........

Now I have two Hondas in my driveway and no regrets. GM or Ford can get me back at some point but I have to see they are serious about building better cars and then I will give them a try..........too much frustration over the years to go back.

A short story. My FIRST huge problem with GM was a 96 Pontiac grand Prix. I ordered it from the factory, and at the time was working as a Pontiac sales manager in a large metro dealer. At 27,000 miles, and 3 months out of warranty, the tranny went. Pontiac REFUSED to give me any help or goodwill at all. Luckily I knew a guy from the factory who intervened on my behalf anf got GM to cover 2/3 of the cost. However, it was really an eye opener for me, it proved:

1)GM didn't care about the customer

2)Quality was an issue back then. Seems to me a car that had been made on that platform for 8 years should have had the bugs worked out by then...........

 

[Zathras]

I don't understand why someone would post obviously untrue or distorted assertions. Often it might come from some emotionally compelling agenda on the part of the poster, sometimes from simple incomplete information.

I believe it is even simpler than that.
I think there is an urge to make one's point through exageration. This seems to happen more often with some people than others and in some types of arguments (global warming, gun control and bailouts all seem to fit in that group).
If the people making the outrageous exagerations would simply acknowledge the exageration, they could eliminate the lightning rod of their exageration and get on with making their point.