Flybrian

While GM grows overseas, US must not be forgotten

28 posts in this topic

U.S. casts shadow on GM global surge
Posted Image
Sharon Terlep | Link to Original Article @ The Detroit News


General Motors Corp. is shattering sales records, besting competitors and making money almost everywhere in the world.

Those successes will amount to little, however, if the automaker can't resuscitate sales in its money-losing North American operation -- something GM says isn't likely until at least 2008.

GM sold 2.4 million vehicles around the world in the second quarter, with 1.4 million of those cars and trucks going to consumers outside the United States, according to sales data released Thursday.

GM reclaimed the No. 1 global rank for the second quarter after outselling Toyota, but Toyota’s six-month sales exceeded GM’s. According to Bloomberg News, Toyota sold 2.37 million vehicles in the April-June quarter - the first quarter in the Japanese fiscal year - but still outsold GM by 42,000 vehicles in the six-month period to June 30.

On a worldwide basis, 2007 is shaping up to be the second-best sales year in GM's history. Take the United States out of the equation, and GM shattered its quarterly sales record.

But the United States is anything but out of the equation.

"You cannot be profitable as an auto manufacturer without being successful in the U.S.," GM sales analyst Paul Ballew said Thursday. "It's still the biggest, most important market."

Ballew said the United States will be the auto industry's biggest profit center for the remainder of the decade. While he expects GM's U.S. sales performance to improve in July compared to June, when demand fell 21 percent, he doesn't predict a significant rebound until next year.

U.S. buying power vital


The carmaker's biggest quandary: How to sell more cars and trucks to Americans. GM needs the buying power of U.S. consumers and their affinity for pricier, high-profit vehicles. Even in wealthier foreign countries, consumers prefer smaller vehicles and tend to lean more toward cars than profitable trucks.

"This market is not an optional market; you can't walk away from it," said David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor. "They've got this big boil that unless it is taken care of, it can destroy the whole game."

Look no further than GM's first quarter to see the importance of U.S. sales. Financial losses concentrated in GM's home market all but wiped out the more than $300 million in profits generated by the automaker in three regions outside North America. GM finished the quarter barely in the black with $62 million in profits.

One analyst succinctly summed up GM's problem in a headline on his research note Thursday: International Good, U.S. Bad.

"In an indication of GM's broad-based growth strategy, each (international) region notched record sales for the quarter," wrote Bear Sterns analyst Peter Nesvold. "The combined effect of these improvements scarcely offset continued weakness in North America."

Consistent growth abroad


In a conference call Thursday with reporters and industry analysts, GM's Ballew ticked off an impressive list of statistics:
  • GM sales increased in every region outside North America in the first half of the year, with Latin America up 18.6 percent, Asia Pacific up 14.3 percent and Europe up 5.3 percent.
  • Second-quarter sales outside the United States grew 8 percent to a new quarterly record, outpacing the industry average growth rate of 6 percent.
  • Sales surged 19.7 percent in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East.
  • GM reported record demand in China, the world's second-largest automobile market outside the United States, with sales up more than 6 percent in the quarter.
Those global victories are not insignificant, Cole said. As the worldwide market grows, it's crucial that automakers be well positioned to compete in those burgeoning markets. GM has done more than rivals Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group to entrench itself in countries with the fastest-growing auto markets.

In China, the world's fastest growing market, GM's share of sales is second only to Germany's Volkswagen AG, which has two Chinese ventures. GM Shanghai had a 10 percent market share through April, behind VW's 16 percent.

"GM is very rapidly becoming a global company," Cole said.

At the same time, GM's success abroad isn't guaranteed. The competitive pressures threatening GM at home are emerging abroad. All the major players in the auto industry are scrambling for a bigger piece of the business in emerging markets.

Toyota Motor Corp. outpaced GM in global sales for the first time in history in the first quarter of the year.

However, in figures reported early today, the Japanese carmaker sold 2.37 million in the second quarter of 2007, putting it behind GM for that period. Toyota is still on pace to take the No. 1 title for all of 2007, with projected sales of 9.34 million units to GM's estimated 9.2 million.

"The key," GM's Ballew said, "is to not be excessively dependent in the U.S. while still being successful in the U.S."
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And they continue to fiddle while Rome burns.

At the top end of their new product cadence, no less.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=4282

"We anticipate [that the U.S.] will still be the most profitable market in the decade ahead. It's really key not to be excessively dependent on the U.S., but you still need to be successful in the U.S." It’s no surprise that GM Chief Sales Analyst Paul Ballew sent mixed messages to the financial community when revealing GM’s Q2 sales results. Not to put too fine a point on it, the automaker’s U.S. market share continues to evaporate while its overseas operations continue to expand. The General’s growing foreign sales aren’t enough to compensate for the company’s North American sinkhole, but it gave GM’s spinmeister something to spin. Such is the way of things at GM these days.

That said, this just in: according to Mr. Ballew, GM should begin seeing a recovery in U.S. in 2008. As far as I can tell, no reporter or analyst asked GM’s mouthpiece what events or non-events are covered by the word “should,” what exactly the word “recovery” means, when in 2008 this recovery will arrive or how this sudden rise from GM’s fall from grace will be achieved. Oh, and didn’t GM say they were already in recovery?

Yes, well, it’s no wonder GM’s backed away from that idea. Thanks to a spectacularly lousy June, this financial quarter, at the height of GM’s new product cadence, the automaker’s North America sales fell seven percent. Once again, GM blamed high gasoline prices, a weak housing market and a planned reduction in daily rental sales. So are we to assume that gas prices will decline, the housing market will jump to its feet and the company will abandon abandoning daily rental sales?

The last point raises an important question. It’s all well and good to bolster residual values by limiting fleets sales, but what will take the place of these job lots and raise GM NA out of its current torpor? The new Saturn Astra, whose production and importation costs obviate the possibility of profit? The new Chevrolet Yukon hybrid, an enigma wrapped in a riddle (what kind of fuel conscious buyer buys a huge, poorly packaged SUV)?

How about the new Chevrolet Malibu? Last year, the current fleet queen Malibu racked-up 153,846 sales. If GM is getting out of the fleet business, they’ll need to replace every Malibu removed from fleet duty with one purchased by a retail customer. In other words, Chevrolet will have to sell tens of thousands more Malibus to retail customers just to achieve existing volumes.

The redesigned Cadillac CTS is also on the horizon. Last year, GM’s erstwhile luxury division unloaded 54,846 CTS sedans on its class-conscious customers. Even if Caddy doubles that total, it still wouldn’t generate anywhere near enough profit to rescue a company with eight brands selling 52 models.

Clearly, obviously, GM’s turnaround depends on the company shifting a lot more of everything. While there are some bright spots and heavy hitters in GM’s roster– the law of averages guarantees it– the overall picture is bleak. Other than reducing price, which kills profits and destroys brand equity, what can they do?

Rick Wagoner’s mob doesn’t have an answer. Thankfully (for them), no one’s asking. All eyes are now upon GM’s negotiations with the United Auto Workers (UAW). Wall Street, stockholders and GM camp followers are all watching the proceedings like hawks, presuming that reducing labor costs to transplant parity is the key to GM’s survival. That logic only works if you assume that GM would use the money saved to make better cars. Is there anyone out there who really believes that?

At the risk of sounding cynical (perish the thought), any money saved is likely to disappear down GM’s corporate rat hole. For one thing, if GM bosses pay themselves huge bonuses when the company’s losing billions, imagine what they’ll do after concluding a “historic union giveback.”

Whether or not GM “reduces” its health care obligations by going into subterranean levels of debt (to set up a VEBA for the UAW as described by Frank Williams), whether or not the two sides emerge from negotiations with the status quo intact or destroyed, Chevy and Saturn will still be fighting a losing battle against Toyondissan, Cadillac will still be struggling for sales, Pontiac and Buick will still be deeply damaged brands, Hummer and Saab will still be expensive irrelevances and GMC will still be… there.

Now that GM’s suffered a 24 percent sales drop in June against the transplants’ double digit sales increases, some analysts are beginning to understand the crux of GM’s problem: unloved, unwanted and uncompetitive product. If GM’s sales take another big hit in July while their competition moves upward, there will be even more pressure to do a deal with the UAW. And it will be even more irrelevant.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The auto business IS hell. Not everything is so rosy in Japan's home market either.

quote cheery picked from here

the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association sees total industry volume dropping 1.9 percent in 2007 to 5.63 million. It mainly blames weak commercial truck sales. That total would be down 28 percent from the record of 7.78 million in 1990.

Minis top Toyota

In the second quarter, sales of Toyota and Lexus vehicles combined dropped 10.7 percent to 343,500. That put Toyota's market share behind that of 660cc minicars, whose sales slipped 5.2 percent to 453,468. Minicars have held up comparatively well, as consumers have shifted to the economical vehicles. Six of the quarter's 10 best-selling models were minicars.

Total light-vehicle sales in the second quarter fell 7.9 percent to 1,175,887.

Sales of all vehicles were even worse, dropping 8.2 percent to 1,197,329. Sales of medium- and heavy-duty trucks were particularly weak, tumbling 23.2 percent to 18,095.

Suzuki Motor Corp.'s sales fell a modest 4.0 percent to 158,001 in the second quarter. Suzuki thus took second place in the sales ranking, ahead of Nissan Motor Co. and Honda Motor Co.

Nissan's sales also did relatively well, dropping only 6.3 percent to 150,883. Honda's slid 11.4 percent to 148,149.

Imports held their ground, slipping a mere 1.9 percent to 63,943 in the second quarter. But DaimlerChrysler's sales fell 23.3 percent, as sales of Mercedes-brand cars dropped 23.5 percent.

JAPAN'S TOP 10 SELLERS

2nd quarter 2007

  • Suzuki Wagon R*: 53,659
  • Daihatsu Move*: 49,323
  • Toyota Corolla: 32,253
  • Toyota Vitz: 25,879
  • Daihatsu Tanto*: 24,776
  • Daihatsu Mira*: 22,510
  • Honda Fit: 21,651
  • Honda Life*: 20,858
  • Toyota Passo: 18,978
  • Suzuki Alto*: 17,307
*Minivehicle with engine under 660cc

Source: Japan Automobile Dealers Association and Automotive News

Also you mention

Even if Caddy doubles that total, it still wouldn't generate anywhere near enough profit to rescue a company with eight brands selling 52 models.

I read that the Saturn brans has a total of ONLY 31 employees.

While I agree with many of your points, I do think the glass is only 75% empty, not 99%.

I've been wring before.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And they continue to fiddle while Rome burns.

At the top end of their new product cadence, no less.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=4282

"We anticipate [that the U.S.] will still be the most profitable market in the decade ahead. It's really key not to be excessively dependent on the U.S., but you still need to be successful in the U.S." It’s no surprise that GM Chief Sales Analyst Paul Ballew sent mixed messages to the financial community when revealing GM’s Q2 sales results. Not to put too fine a point on it, the automaker’s U.S. market share continues to evaporate while its overseas operations continue to expand. The General’s growing foreign sales aren’t enough to compensate for the company’s North American sinkhole, but it gave GM’s spinmeister something to spin. Such is the way of things at GM these days.

That said, this just in: according to Mr. Ballew, GM should begin seeing a recovery in U.S. in 2008. As far as I can tell, no reporter or analyst asked GM’s mouthpiece what events or non-events are covered by the word “should,” what exactly the word “recovery” means, when in 2008 this recovery will arrive or how this sudden rise from GM’s fall from grace will be achieved. Oh, and didn’t GM say they were already in recovery?

Yes, well, it’s no wonder GM’s backed away from that idea. Thanks to a spectacularly lousy June, this financial quarter, at the height of GM’s new product cadence, the automaker’s North America sales fell seven percent. Once again, GM blamed high gasoline prices, a weak housing market and a planned reduction in daily rental sales. So are we to assume that gas prices will decline, the housing market will jump to its feet and the company will abandon abandoning daily rental sales?

The last point raises an important question. It’s all well and good to bolster residual values by limiting fleets sales, but what will take the place of these job lots and raise GM NA out of its current torpor? The new Saturn Astra, whose production and importation costs obviate the possibility of profit? The new Chevrolet Yukon hybrid, an enigma wrapped in a riddle (what kind of fuel conscious buyer buys a huge, poorly packaged SUV)?

How about the new Chevrolet Malibu? Last year, the current fleet queen Malibu racked-up 153,846 sales. If GM is getting out of the fleet business, they’ll need to replace every Malibu removed from fleet duty with one purchased by a retail customer. In other words, Chevrolet will have to sell tens of thousands more Malibus to retail customers just to achieve existing volumes.

The redesigned Cadillac CTS is also on the horizon. Last year, GM’s erstwhile luxury division unloaded 54,846 CTS sedans on its class-conscious customers. Even if Caddy doubles that total, it still wouldn’t generate anywhere near enough profit to rescue a company with eight brands selling 52 models.

Clearly, obviously, GM’s turnaround depends on the company shifting a lot more of everything. While there are some bright spots and heavy hitters in GM’s roster– the law of averages guarantees it– the overall picture is bleak. Other than reducing price, which kills profits and destroys brand equity, what can they do?

Rick Wagoner’s mob doesn’t have an answer. Thankfully (for them), no one’s asking. All eyes are now upon GM’s negotiations with the United Auto Workers (UAW). Wall Street, stockholders and GM camp followers are all watching the proceedings like hawks, presuming that reducing labor costs to transplant parity is the key to GM’s survival. That logic only works if you assume that GM would use the money saved to make better cars. Is there anyone out there who really believes that?

At the risk of sounding cynical (perish the thought), any money saved is likely to disappear down GM’s corporate rat hole. For one thing, if GM bosses pay themselves huge bonuses when the company’s losing billions, imagine what they’ll do after concluding a “historic union giveback.”

Whether or not GM “reduces” its health care obligations by going into subterranean levels of debt (to set up a VEBA for the UAW as described by Frank Williams), whether or not the two sides emerge from negotiations with the status quo intact or destroyed, Chevy and Saturn will still be fighting a losing battle against Toyondissan, Cadillac will still be struggling for sales, Pontiac and Buick will still be deeply damaged brands, Hummer and Saab will still be expensive irrelevances and GMC will still be… there.

Now that GM’s suffered a 24 percent sales drop in June against the transplants’ double digit sales increases, some analysts are beginning to understand the crux of GM’s problem: unloved, unwanted and uncompetitive product. If GM’s sales take another big hit in July while their competition moves upward, there will be even more pressure to do a deal with the UAW. And it will be even more irrelevant.

Lousy bunch of drivel by an incredibly biased jackass. Truly irresponsible writing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse:

My buddy just picked up a brand new black on black CTS today. I took it for a spin. Absolutely breathtaking. The 3.6 litre was awesome. The black interior is awesome. The "look" of the vehicle is awesome. I am green with envy. Anyone that pays $20k more for a BMW 5 series over this car is just an IDIOT, plain and simple. GM is doing an aweful lot of things right these days. There is nothing, absolutely nothing coming from Toyota that is class-leading.

The media will eventually get tired of Toyota's kool-aid. Let's get through this impending UAW/CAW debacle, then see what rebuilding there is to do.

Retrospective is always 20-20.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TTAC doesn't even qualify as media - it's just some ill-informed yahoo with a website who's dissappointed that his predictions that GM would go bankrupt haven't materialised.

Worse than useless.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TTAC doesn't even qualify as media - it's just some ill-informed yahoo with a website who's dissappointed that his predictions that GM would go bankrupt haven't materialised.

Worse than useless.

Except that its not wrong.

You may not like what he says, but its a very possible outcome.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could win the lottery, too. :thumbsup:

North Korea could become a democracy.....

Castro could visit Washington one day...

The Yen could float against the dollar...

Colin Ferell may yet move in with me...

But I don't see any of these articles EVERY DAY.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TTAC does make a point with the new Malibu which kinda worries me. Right now the 'Bu went 58% to fleet through June, out of 64,000 sold that means there were only 26,000 retail sales. Divide that by six months and you're talking about 4000 per month retail. Even at the Malibu's peak in 2005 when it sold 203,000, if you take that 58% into account it only sold about 84,000 Malibus...more or less depending on what the actual fleet percentage was at that time.

The reason Ford's sales were so terrible in 2006 due to the death of the Taurus and the amount of brand new cars they had out that weren't being allowed to be fleeted above 20% (most were at 10% for a while). All the trolls at BON called the Fusion a failure because it wasn't selling at Taurus levels even though it was getting more retail customers than the Taurus had been since it became a fleet queen. Now, thanks to Ford's continuous stream of new and refreshed vehicles, the sales slide has slowed and actually looks like it will be reversed next year.

The thing that TTAC forgets about the Malibu is that they are keeping the "Malibu Classic" around for the fleet companies. They can keep '08 Malibu rentals low to maintain resale, but the numbers aren't going to approach anything near what they have in the past. If they keep fleet low, I predict the '08 Malibu will sell about 120,000 next year.

I think GM will come back big by 2010 when all the new vehicles debut, but they haven't transitioned as much as Ford from fleet to retail and if they are truly serious about cutting fleet to levels like 30% rather than what they have on the Malibu, Impala, Grand Prix, etc...it's going to hurt the numbers until all that new and refreshed product is out.

Edited by mustang84
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and wait until the new Malibu is a sales success and kills the Impala sales, which it probably will. TTAC can go rabid over that next. Until the new RWD (hopefully) Impala arrives, the Malibu will canablize sales from the Impala. Guaranteed.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing that worries me about the next Malibu is the negative image (ugly rental queen vehicle) the name has for the vast majority of car buyers.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TTAC is writing by a bunch of doofs who got bored staying at home on saturday nights masturbating all night.

Geraldo and Springer are Pulitzer compared to TTAC.

anyone who takes TTAC seriously needs their gourd examined for expiration.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that its not wrong.

You may not like what he says, but its a very possible outcome.

About what?

That "article" has no substance, it just a litany of anti-GM invective and cheap and inaccurate potshots thrown by a bitter idiot who can't stand the fact that GM hasn't died yet.

TTAC has no credibility whatsoever, no basis for the assumptions it makes, and nothing approaching the skills required to make a critical assesment. Anyone with a touch of writing talent and a minimum of research could write a far more accurate criticism of GM that would stand up to scrutiny. GM certainly still has enough real issues to criticize that this sort of blather is unacceptable and unnecessary. Many right here on this site, who love GM, could write a better indictment of GM's activities and their failings than this agenda promoting fool.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignoring the TTAC BS and getting back to the original article, it is obvious to me that GM is well on its way to creating both market share and profit around the globe. While not nearly enough to offset the situation in North America, this strategy bodes well for the long-term survival of GM. They are well positioned in so many markets to take advantage of nearly automatic expansion and are agressively pursuing business in those countries. This buys some time to get GMNA's house back in order which seems to be happening as well. Witness all of the recent introductions which are doing well in the market, earning accolades from traditionally hostile press outlets, and earning a slew of awards. GM will be just fine, but they need to push the speed of recovery quite a bit more than they have.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree that TTAC is garbage on wheels. The fact that certain statements of theirs from time to time are correct doesn't add any credibility or veracity to their juvenile MySpace-quality blog rants filled with trippy pop culture buzzwords and overextended metaphors that they apparently think are cool. I've never seen a blog use a thesaurus as much as them.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. So goes TTAC.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like sour grapes.

Blame the messanger.

TTAC is opinion. They openly agree.

They're right more than twice a day....unfortunately.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like sour grapes.

Blame the messanger.

TTAC is opinion. They openly agree.

They're right more than twice a day....unfortunately.

Ahhh, Mister Doom and Gloom is back! Now where is my fiddle?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like sour grapes.

Blame the messanger.

TTAC is opinion. They openly agree.

They're right more than twice a day....unfortunately.

Hardly.

You and I don't agree much, but I've read enough of your posts to know that you yourself could outwrite that twit at TTAC.

Quoting that guy doesn't help your own credibility, you are far more logical in stating your own position than he is.

EDIT: For instance, I doubt you would have mentioned a "Chevrolet Yukon Hybrid" if you had written the piece. :lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I'm tempted to take that bit of idiocy apart point-by-point. But that's FOG's job. :AH-HA_wink:

I will hit him on one point though. In the piece he mocks the Chevrolet "Yukon" (sic) hybrid, and that is a completely asinine position to take. There is no better place for a hybrid system than the large, truck-based vehicles where the greatest reductions in fuel consumption are to be found. We've seen how foolish it is to apply the technology to small, already efficient cars, and how ineffective that has been. Add in the sophmoric hyperbole and histrionics over this vehicle and you begin to see the depth of the author's inability.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GM's going bankrupt has been predicted many times. as of yet it has not happened. Many like to play on thier problems because it gets attention. Some even like to play this up as they hidden agendas to promote for money people behind the dark sunglasses.

The truth is

Fact: everything at GM is not perfect.

Fact: are they in the last throws of life? No!

Fact Is the Malibu going to sell less cars volume wise? Yes!

Fact; Was GM making much money if any off of fleet sales? No!

Fact GM will gain as well as GM buyers in the long run by eliminating low profit fleet sales? Yes as they will make more profit with improved product and buyers will gain greater resale value on their cars.

The bottom line is GM needs to lose the cheap low profit if any fleet sales. Will it hurt in the short term? Good chance but it will pay off in the long tun. No pain no gain.

Goodyear tire has done the same thing in the last few years. They have forgone the cheap and easy OE tire market on many small and cheap cars. They are only offering higher premium quality and higher profitable tires on less lines. This has helped their bottom line after a couple years and also helped in image as they are no making bare bones tires to fit a Cobalt or G6. They are leaving this to Hankook and other 4n brands that are using cheap labor to make high volume junk tires.

Goodyear today is making tires like thr Triple Tread Assurance tire line that is a very quality high profit tire, They work less and make more money and gain a better image. Hankook can make tires in Korea as minimum cost and quality and give the auto makers what they want on cheap cars. The OE on most non performance and luxury cars only want the bare quality to get by and the minumum cost.

As stated here by many it is not volume anymore it is about profit per unit only He who make more money wins not the one who sells more cars anymore. The bottom line GM is doing what they need to do and they are gaing ground every day.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardly.

You and I don't agree much, but I've read enough of your posts to know that you yourself could outwrite that twit at TTAC.

Quoting that guy doesn't help your own credibility, you are far more logical in stating your own position than he is.

EDIT: For instance, I doubt you would have mentioned a "Chevrolet Yukon Hybrid" if you had written the piece. :lol:

See. here's my issue with bashing TTAC, as if everything they say is BS:

1. I'm not using them as fact finders, just as an opinion that has merit, even if most here vehemently disagree with their 'politics.' I think I've exhibited enough real knowledge to defend my own opinions in a credible fashion.

2. I used that link as a quick counterpoint to the fact that the rosy proclamations of the overseas performance having any bearing here in the US is wishful thinking...if anything, more jobs, more production will flow overseas....you want the small car lineup to be Daewoo updates and mediocrities?, be my guest.

3. More to come....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See. here's my issue with bashing TTAC, as if everything they say is BS:

1. I'm not using them as fact finders, just as an opinion that has merit, even if most here vehemently disagree with their 'politics.' I think I've exhibited enough real knowledge to defend my own opinions in a credible fashion.

2. I used that link as a quick counterpoint to the fact that the rosy proclamations of the overseas performance having any bearing here in the US is wishful thinking...if anything, more jobs, more production will flow overseas....you want the small car lineup to be Daewoo updates and mediocrities?, be my guest.

3. More to come....

TTAC deserves all the bashing they get - they have earned it.

1. Very little merit buried in a pile of inaccuracy and blind hate. I agree that you have exhibited enough real knowledge to be credible, but using TTAC lessens that.

2. It's more than "rosy proclamations" it is a lengthening list of sales and market share gains as well as increasing profits. As such, it absolutely has bearing on what happens here.

3. I have little doubt of that, but leave the TTAC garbage out of it - you'll be better off.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TTAC deserves all the bashing they get - they have earned it.

1. Very little merit buried in a pile of inaccuracy and blind hate. I agree that you have exhibited enough real knowledge to be credible, but using TTAC lessens that.

2. It's more than "rosy proclamations" it is a lengthening list of sales and market share gains as well as increasing profits. As such, it absolutely has bearing on what happens here.

3. I have little doubt of that, but leave the TTAC garbage out of it - you'll be better off.

TTAC is entertainment....but like Fox News, their agenda sometimes gets in the way of legitimate thought.

I understand they're not well liked here, I just disagree that they're that far off on many points...

And I'll answer your criticism with explanantions:

1. They have a point of view, but they're not inaccurate. Much like anyone with a point of view, supporting facts are emphasized and those that don't aren't mentioned---as each and every member here does when they are supporting their arguments...

2. That's where a selective choice of facts comes in, conveniently...The reason Chevrolet is having 'record' sales is because its only been available in most of the countries with 'record' gains for the last 3 years! These are mostly regurgitated Daewoos...not necessarily the product for bringing your 'name' to people's attention first....nor are there huge profits in the sales of these type of vehicles---nor is mention made of the cost of developing an infrastructure in these new markets...

--So, when someone attacks opinion, keep in mind that everybody is selective with the facts when the time comes.

3. The only difference between your feeling about GM & mine are that I believe its an 'intervention' - level crisis at GM right now, others here choose to believe otherwise or, IMO, excuse business as usual as acceptable. If quoting TTAC gets people thinking, I'm OK with that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

Loading...