I say let them fail, they are obviously incompetent.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/08/15/general-motors-is-headed-for-bankruptcy-again/
President Obama is proud of his bailout of General Motors. That’s good, because, if he wins a second term, he is probably going to have to bail GM out again. The company is once again losing market share, and it seems unable to develop products that are truly competitive in the U.S. market.
Right now, the federal government owns 500,000,000 shares of GM, or about 26% of the company. It would need to get about $53.00/share for these to break even on the bailout, but the stock closed at only $20.21/share on Tuesday. This left the government holding $10.1 billion worth of stock, and sitting on an unrealized loss of $16.4 billion.
Right now, the government’s GM stock is worth about 39% less than it was on November 17, 2010, when the company went public at $33.00/share. However, during the intervening time, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen by almost 20%, so GM shares have lost 49% of their value relative to the Dow
I would call this irrefutable proof that Dave Mustaine is not only "not crazy" but in fact the very epitome of genius. 
A politically motivated doom and gloom article based on a single car test that we all know probably isn't worth the paper it's written on.
I hear this is the rebuttal.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2012/08/16/leadership-not-another-bailout-will-fix-general-motors/
I wonder if the original author is trying to short sell GM to make money.
So a VW beats a Chevy in initial testing, but long term reliability is not a factor.
Wait, what?
I enjoyed Bob Lutzs rebuttle.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/boblutz/2012/08/17/chicken-littles-second-gm-bankruptcy-the-gold-medal-for-silly-op-ed-pieces/
Seriously, you guys should lay off reading every online editorial and blog you can find - it would really help your blood pressure. Just because some guy at Forbes has an opinion, that doesn't make it the gospel truth.
How does a stock price affect whether or not a company is about to be bankrupt anyway? They don't have to buy it back, they can always sell more, and it has nothing to do with actual cash flow. I smell ulterior motive...
AGAIN? Damn... Glad I work at a Ford dealership.
Javelin wrote:
How does a stock price affect whether or not a company is about to be bankrupt anyway? They don't have to buy it back, they can always sell more, and it has nothing to do with actual cash flow. I smell ulterior motive...
IF the unions were going to cash in to make sure their VEBA is funded, or if the Government was going to cash out to reduce their ownership, lowering the stock price would lessen how much either can make. Since so many have a beef toward both, there's a reason why someone would want to lower the stock price.
I blame the trilateral commission.
4cylndrfury wrote:
I blame canada
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOR38552MJA
4cylndrfury wrote:
I blame canada
Do we really have to come down there and burn the Whitehouse down, AGAIN?
Jeez, damn Americans never learn...
HiTempguy wrote:
4cylndrfury wrote:
I blame canada
Do we really have to come down there and burn the Whitehouse down, AGAIN?
Jeez, damn Americans never learn...
And back on the NSA list for you!
HiTempguy wrote:
4cylndrfury wrote:
I blame canada
Do we really have to come down there and burn the Whitehouse down, AGAIN?
Jeez, damn Americans never learn...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9KQQrNDawM
Chris_V
UltraDork
8/17/12 3:34 p.m.
As was mentioned on another forum...
"So, based on one car alone, Forbes thinks GM is going to go BK again? Seems like an election year, anti-Obama slam piece. They are blaming him for bailouts that were started under George Bush, while basing their claims of repeat bankruptcy on no solid financial data.
I mean are they really comparing the Malibu to the Passat? The old Malibu easily outsells/outsold the Passat. There is no reason to assume that the new one won't outsell the VW, when the full engine range picks up. They point out the short-wheel base as a problem, but neglect to point out that Ford has also gone with more internationally appropriate SWB models, in their media-friendly turnaround. I would imagine that if GM had gone to a US-only long wheelbase Malibu, the GM-hating media would slam them for making cars "ever bigger and heavier".
The author of the article also fails to take into account platform optimization. The Malibu shares the bulk of its platform with the Opel Insignia/Buick Regal, Buick LaCrosse, Cadillac XTS, an upcoming Chevy Impala. Since the costs are spread over so many models, there isn't a lot of pressure for the Malibu to sell in Camry/Accord like numbers. I'm sure GM wants it to sell in those volumes for marketing/bragging rights, but the Malibu is probably still profitable at much lower volumes. Since Forbes is a business magazine, shouldn't PROFITS be the real concern, not sales volume?
Forbes citing blogs and enthusiast media, for negative quotes on the Malibu is ridiculous. The internet, for some reason, hates GM. Going to a biased source for a biased article is ridiculous."
What is unfortunate about these opinion pieces is that spreading misinformation is so much easier than correcting their fallacies.
Hmmmm, now is the time to grab a few GM shares
aussiesmg wrote:
Hmmmm, now is the time to grab a few GM shares
More than a few people had that thought back in 2008.
Wow, glad I read this!
I'm taking out a second on the house and shorting every share of GM I can find first thing Monday! Never-mind that it was up over three percent today (damn, WTF? I need to look into that). Now that I know they're going bankrupt, I can make a fortune!
