Future of America's auto industry
05-20-2009, 08:12 PM
#71
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SoCal
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dlq04,May 20 2009, 08:45 AM
For years and years anyone who follows the auto industry has known that GM has TOO many brands and TOO many dealers. Closing 1/3rd of the them is a good thing in the long run. Often state laws did not allow them to close down poor performing dealers. Dealerships & their associations insisted they must have the same model in their shop that was selling well under a different brand name in another GM shop. All this badge engineering did nothing to improve product.
I don't agree with the Big Hand sweeping some and keeping others--let the market decide who stays and who goes.
05-20-2009, 08:14 PM
#72
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SoCal
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Triple-H,May 20 2009, 09:20 AM
Yup, this was one really hot performing Mustang wasn't it...
Must be I'm the only one who remembers the Mustang II.
Have Dave, I thought you were old enough to remember this...
Must be I'm the only one who remembers the Mustang II.
Have Dave, I thought you were old enough to remember this...
05-20-2009, 11:55 PM
#73
Originally Posted by Triple-H,May 20 2009, 01:20 PM
Must be I'm the only one who remembers the Mustang II.
05-21-2009, 06:25 PM
#74
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SoCal
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard today that GM will be split up as follows (going from memory):
sharholders get 1%
bond holders (invested $27 billion) get 10%
government (invested $17 billion) gets 50%
UAW (invested ? Unfunded pension $9 billion) get 39%
My math is a little rusty, but I guess $26 billion from the gov't / UAW equals 89% of the company, while all shareholders and bondholders--the actual owners of the company (over $27 billion)-- equals 11%.
Bondholders are teachers unions, other pension funds, hedge funds, mutual funds, etceteras.
sharholders get 1%
bond holders (invested $27 billion) get 10%
government (invested $17 billion) gets 50%
UAW (invested ? Unfunded pension $9 billion) get 39%
My math is a little rusty, but I guess $26 billion from the gov't / UAW equals 89% of the company, while all shareholders and bondholders--the actual owners of the company (over $27 billion)-- equals 11%.
Bondholders are teachers unions, other pension funds, hedge funds, mutual funds, etceteras.
05-21-2009, 07:03 PM
#75
Registered User
Cordy,
It's the 21'st Century. Those that saved and invested should just eat cat food so that deadbeats can get "modifications" on their mortgages that would be "INCONVENIENT" to repay.
The secured bondholders of Chrysler were placed behind the unsecured creditors. But if you're a bankruptcy judge and the President of the United States makes it clear that he wants a particular outcome regardless of the law, what would you do?
It's the 21'st Century. Those that saved and invested should just eat cat food so that deadbeats can get "modifications" on their mortgages that would be "INCONVENIENT" to repay.
The secured bondholders of Chrysler were placed behind the unsecured creditors. But if you're a bankruptcy judge and the President of the United States makes it clear that he wants a particular outcome regardless of the law, what would you do?
05-22-2009, 04:28 AM
#76
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Marblehead
Posts: 4,563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that split will encourage investors and lenders to finance the rebirth of GM. Until just a few months ago, I would have thought such outcome to be impossible.
05-22-2009, 06:24 AM
#77
News this AM...More federal bailout cash to GMAC so they can make some car loans and get people buying.
05-22-2009, 08:59 AM
#78
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by cordycord,May 21 2009, 12:12 AM
Wouldn't it be nice if they closed--or stayed open--based on competition, pricing, service, location?
GM's situation is different, at least right, since they haven't declared bankruptcy yet. Still everyone expects they will, even with the UAWs recent tentative agreement. In part, GM would have to be looking at fine points in the contract to show the dealer isn't living up to it. I suspect the closing list could change when they go bankrupt.
05-22-2009, 09:26 PM
#79
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SoCal
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dlq04,May 22 2009, 08:59 AM
What criteria do you think they used? For Chrysler this was it! They have been studying this for a year. A healthy company has to have healthy dealers to survive. State laws were preventing them from closing under performing dealers. Strong dealers will only get stronger. It may surprise you to hear this but the strong Chrysler dealers think this re-do is great news and they expect to be very profitable if they can weather the valley until things improve.
GM's situation is different, at least right, since they haven't declared bankruptcy yet. Still everyone expects they will, even with the UAWs recent tentative agreement. In part, GM would have to be looking at fine points in the contract to show the dealer isn't living up to it. I suspect the closing list could change when they go bankrupt.
GM's situation is different, at least right, since they haven't declared bankruptcy yet. Still everyone expects they will, even with the UAWs recent tentative agreement. In part, GM would have to be looking at fine points in the contract to show the dealer isn't living up to it. I suspect the closing list could change when they go bankrupt.
While I don't like it, I understand it. However, I REALLY don't like how the powers-that-be have negotiated the bondholders out of their rightful percentage of the company, while the UAW & the gov't get a huge slice. It's scary, frankly, and has actually caused me to consciously move into investments that would be less vulnerable to government-controlled ownership.
