Jump to content

GM Posts 3rd Worst Quarterly Results Ever


Recommended Posts

Let's remind everyone here that GM had a HUGE Portfolio of products and has been selling off / slashing non core companies to get back to a lean fighting Auto builder only. As such, these one time charges are totally understandable to rid themselves of the parts companies, etc. Reality is this will hurt everyone but by 2010 we will see a profitable GM with an awesome assortment of vehicles.

As other reports have stated, with gas being cheap, a number of people, approx 1/3 of Truck / SUV purchases bought way to much truck / SUV for their real need. A cross over or Station wagon on Steroids like the SRX style is all these people really needed, but marketing being what it is sold what the people asked for and even Toyota got caught up in this with their Bomb of a Tundra.

So Let's keep everyone focused on the positive future that will come with a host of World Class Leading Hybrids and Newer Diesels. We survived WWII when the Japanease bombed us and won that war. The Japanease then said if they could not beat us by war they would do it Economically.

We can muster our strengths and hopefully get people to stop being selfish instant gratification and Buy American where ever possible to rise up and win the long term Global Economic battle of consumption. 8)

Edited by dfelt
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Horror.

Honestly, this kind of pain could have been avoided if they had given equal focus to small and midsize cars and not just trucks and SUVs. This goes for Ford and Chrysler too. Most of the automakers are hurting too, but I doubt anywhere near as much. Now they need small cars but have to develope them for our market, which takees time and money they don't have. That's all it boils down too.

Hopefully they can weather the storm and emerge with a hard learned lesson, so this never happens again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Horror.

Honestly, this kind of pain could have been avoided if they had given equal focus to small and midsize cars and not just trucks and SUVs. This goes for Ford and Chrysler too. Most of the automakers are hurting too, but I doubt anywhere near as much. Now they need small cars but have to develope them for our market, which takees time and money they don't have. That's all it boils down too.

Hopefully they can weather the storm and emerge with a hard learned lesson, so this never happens again.

I totally agree. To ensure longevity and success, an auto manufacturer must continue to make great products to cover all market segments. Ford, GM, and Chrysler seemed to forget this at the height of truck/SUV mania. Now they are hurting much worse than some of their foreign counterparts.

What's so strange about the situation is that Ford and GM have excellent small cars that they offer in foreign markets, but never considered engineering these cars to comply with U.S. regulations just in case they would need to bring them here. The current Corsa is the most glaring example as far as GM is concerned. I also hope that the domestic automakers have learned their lesson and never get caught as unprepared as they have been since the bottom fell out of the truck/SUV market.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I totally agree. To ensure longevity and success, an auto manufacturer must continue to make great products to cover all market segments. Ford, GM, and Chrysler seemed to forget this at the height of truck/SUV mania. Now they are hurting much worse than some of their foreign counterparts.

What's so strange about the situation is that Ford and GM have excellent small cars that they offer in foreign markets, but never considered engineering these cars to comply with U.S. regulations just in case they would need to bring them here. The current Corsa is the most glaring example as far as GM is concerned. I also hope that the domestic automakers have learned their lesson and never get caught as unprepared as they have been since the bottom fell out of the truck/SUV market.

While I mostly agree, it must be remembered that others were caught as well, but not as dramatically. Both Nissan and Toyota were late too the big truck party. Should have they not forseen the downfall. Now Toyota has cut back on Tundra and Sequoia trucks, may cut the Avalon. Nissan will eliminate the Armada, QX45 or whatever it is called and their next big truck will basically be a rebadged Chrysler product. Hell, I just read this morning that Honda is cutting back production of the Odyssey mini van. The import misteps while not as large, nonetheless have been made as well. Honda is in the best position of all with the Honda/Acura lineup to do well in the forseeable future. I wonder how the niche product V-10 NSX will play out when it comes out. Will the media crucify Honda for bringing out such a car in todays environment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's remind everyone here that GM had a HUGE Portfolio of products and has been selling off / slashing non core companies to get back to a lean fighting Auto builder only. As such, these one time charges are totally understandable to rid themselves of the parts companies, etc. Reality is this will hurt everyone but by 2010 we will see a profitable GM with an awesome assortment of vehicles.

As other reports have stated, with gas being cheap, a number of people, approx 1/3 of Truck / SUV purchases bought way to much truck / SUV for their real need. A cross over or Station wagon on Steroids like the SRX style is all these people really needed, but marketing being what it is sold what the people asked for and even Toyota got caught up in this with their Bomb of a Tundra.

So Let's keep everyone focused on the positive future that will come with a host of World Class Leading Hybrids and Newer Diesels. We survived WWII when the Japanease bombed us and won that war. The Japanease then said if they could not beat us by war they would do it Economically.

We can muster our strengths and hopefully get people to stop being selfish instant gratification and Buy American where ever possible to rise up and win the long term Global Economic battle of consumption. 8)

GM has been selling the corporate equivalent of the family silver, not 'non-core' companies. GMAC, Allison aren't exactly "non-core" when GMAC provided most profits for years and Allison was involved with Hybrid Trannies and Heavy trucks...

You can't avoid the fact that without the profits from SUV/Pick-ups, GM hasn't made money in cars since the 60's...How is this management team (with record losses of market share) and hemoraging money left and right (Delphi $ hasn't stopped leaking, VEBA haven't been fully funded yet and tons of other suppliers are on the ropes --ie looking for a GM handout) going to stop if they don't know how to make money with cars?

What car is going to replace Silverado profit? Which crossover is going to replace Tahoe profits? Where is the $ for developing the Volt from scratch going to come from?--other products NOT being developed!

This management team needs to go. GM needs a Mullally -type that will take a real stab at changing GM. Cause I got news for ya...what they're doing isn't working.

(And before you rail on about gas prices or the economy--keep two things in mind---if you depend upon Gas Guzzlers to make $--wouldn't you have a Plan B developed when War is raging in the Middle East? And...they owned RESCAP (only the largest mortgage co. in the US)--you think they might have had an idea that a meltdown was starting?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest aatbloke
every quarter has a large "one time charge"

These are known as "unusual items" - they can be either singular expected one-off charges, large non-recurring charges pertaining to asset dispositions, or a large unexpected charge to the P&L. They can occur for a host of reasons, and most large corporations have at least one a year. For a company the size of GM, one every quarter or half-year isn't outside the realms of possibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites
These are known as "unusual items" - they can be either singular expected one-off charges, large non-recurring charges pertaining to asset dispositions, or a large unexpected charge to the P&L. They can occur for a host of reasons, and most large corporations have at least one a year. For a company the size of GM, one every quarter or half-year isn't outside the realms of possibility.

No, but when press releases continually state "we'd be doing great on paper except for this ONE TIME charge" and then post these massive "one-time" charges every quarter, the spin doctoring becomes apparent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The one-time charges are becoming as ubiquitous as the GM fanboys saying "it will get been when the new product arrives." We heard it before the last gen Malibu, before the last gen full-size trucks, before the current full-size trucks, before the Cobals, before the current CTS. And its just getting worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest aatbloke
No, but when press releases continually state "we'd be doing great on paper except for this ONE TIME charge" and then post these massive "one-time" charges every quarter, the spin doctoring becomes apparent.

A one-time charge is a non-recurring charge in the normal course of trading activities. You could have several such charges for different reasons within a couple of years or even the same year. GM's recent deferred tax write-off was a classic example.

It's nothing to do with spin doctors and everything to do with journalists not being accountants.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, It's not as bad as I expected. I was thinking that it was much worse than that......

As far as the automakers are concerned-you guys haven't seen the worse yet.

I've been preaching all along about the fallout in the ecomony...and it is going to get much worse before it gets better.... :duck:

Looking at leasing-there is no longer a quick fit to get a car. People are simply going to hold on to their cars for a while. (I plan to)

Wait till you see how bad the credit crunch will be....not pretty.

There is going to be both a cut in car AND truck production soon.....

So now might be a good time to pay off your car, put a few bucks in it, and pick up that classic you've been eyeing... :yes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
This management team needs to go. GM needs a Mullally -type that will take a real stab at changing GM. Cause I got news for ya...what they're doing isn't working.

What management team could do any better? What is Mullally doing, besides mortgaging almost everything the company owned back in 2006, that is radically different from what Wagoner is doing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
What management team could do any better? What is Mullally doing, besides mortgaging almost everything the company owned back in 2006, that is radically different from what Wagoner is doing?

Making decisive decisions (converting truck plants tobuild Euro Fords for the NA market) VS sitting with their thumbs up their ass (we can build a CTS Turbo 4, but we don't now if customers want something that is better on gas and makes good power)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Horror.

Honestly, this kind of pain could have been avoided if they had given equal focus to small and midsize cars and not just trucks and SUVs. This goes for Ford and Chrysler too. Most of the automakers are hurting too, but I doubt anywhere near as much. Now they need small cars but have to develope them for our market, which takees time and money they don't have. That's all it boils down too.

Hopefully they can weather the storm and emerge with a hard learned lesson, so this never happens again.

QFT.

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or if you're living on an income that allowed you to barely scrape by before gas hit $3.50/gallon and the price of milk, eggs, bread and just about everything else vital to sustaining life increased.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Or if you're living on an income that allowed you to barely scrape by before gas hit $3.50/gallon and the price of milk, eggs, bread and just about everything else vital to sustaining life increased.

WHich is no doubt the case for a good junk of the population.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know who is worse...

the guy that allowed GM to float on bad vehciles, or is destroying GM by taking away its volume...

GM can sell much more then it is... it can be the discount automaker again... it can return the market place to its annual sales and reap the benifits... but rather it would idle plants? close them down...?

there are advantages to making things more efficent... but they are taking away the volume so the advantages are wasted and the money spent to take those advantages are wasted too... you cant squeeze the company on two fronts at once and expect things to go well

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am surprised that $15 billion is only the 3rd worst quarterly loss. How could they have 2 worse than that? Losing $51 billion since 2005 is a staggering number, even if some is accounting and one time charges, that is a ridiculous amount to lose. They may not make it until 2010 when the labor deal kicks in, even when it does, I doubt it will be enough to solve the problem.

GM said, wait til the GMT900s arrived, then wait til gotta have products like the Solstice/Sky, and new Saturn lineup, then the Lambdas, then it was just wait til the CTS and Malibu come out. For 3 years it has been "wait til net year." Well all that new product came out and they are worse off than they were in 2004.

They have to address brand overlap and product mix. Which means less brands and less rebadging, more top of the class cars.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What management team could do any better? What is Mullally doing, besides mortgaging almost everything the company owned back in 2006, that is radically different from what Wagoner is doing?

Anything but the same old song and dance....sell something off, mortgage more stuff and cut staffing hasn't done it when times were good, economically. Why try the same cure when the result has been unsuccessful?

Mulally, IMO, has brought a sense of urgency severely lacking at GM. My question is why is RW still employed? What has he done to earn his keep? He's presided over the largest corporate disaster in US auto history and you think he should be believed now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The economy is fine unless you were naive (read: stupid) enough to buy a house you couldn't afford or you're in debt up to your eyeballs. :scratchchin:

Sadly, for some people, it's not always a choice..(not the housing thing though)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont know who is worse...

the guy that allowed GM to float on bad vehciles, or is destroying GM by taking away its volume...

GM can sell much more then it is... it can be the discount automaker again... it can return the market place to its annual sales and reap the benifits... but rather it would idle plants? close them down...?

there are advantages to making things more efficent... but they are taking away the volume so the advantages are wasted and the money spent to take those advantages are wasted too... you cant squeeze the company on two fronts at once and expect things to go well

Yeah !!!! Thats the way to do it !!!!

We will just build a ton more.................. at a loss................ but make it up on the volume !!!!! YEAH !!!!

:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah !!!! Thats the way to do it !!!!

We will just build a ton more.................. at a loss................ but make it up on the volume !!!!! YEAH !!!!

:rolleyes:

It worked during the 80's and 90's. Oh, wait.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
A one-time charge is a non-recurring charge in the normal course of trading activities. You could have several such charges for different reasons within a couple of years or even the same year. GM's recent deferred tax write-off was a classic example.

It's nothing to do with spin doctors and everything to do with journalists not being accountants.

You can be a smartass all you want, but successive quarterly losses are ALWAYS successive quarterly losses. "We'd be doing great EXCEPT for this one-time charge" is fine and dandy until you've heard it for like a year and a half and suddenly it starts becoming, "so...when ARE you going to start doing great and knock off the massive losses?"

This isn't a case of journalists not being accountants, but rather accountants making excuses for continued poor financial performance.

GM will be gone if it doesn't stop with the excuse-making about, oh...just about EVERYTHING.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest aatbloke
You can be a smartass all you want, but successive quarterly losses are ALWAYS successive quarterly losses. "We'd be doing great EXCEPT for this one-time charge" is fine and dandy until you've heard it for like a year and a half and suddenly it starts becoming, "so...when ARE you going to start doing great and knock off the massive losses?"

This isn't a case of journalists not being accountants, but rather accountants making excuses for continued poor financial performance.

GM will be gone if it doesn't stop with the excuse-making about, oh...just about EVERYTHING.

Good grief, Americans ... I'm not being a "smartass." I'm a qualified accountant. I'm telling you that unusual items, or one-time charges, are quite common with large corporations. Usually they're the product of accounting entries, but they can be expenditures caused by unprecedented situations - such as strikes or mergers. An unusually small profit or large loss can be the result of an unusual item, and GAAP/IAS requires that they have separate disclosure in the notes to the financial statements.

I'm not making excuses for GM - they've been running an aimless company now for the past twenty years, and that's why Toyota has been running rings around them. While Toyota has spent the last ten years in North America strategically placing models in virtually every segment from B-segment through to C-segment hybrids to full-size SUVs, GM has concentrated only on larger vehicles which yield the greatest unit profit - a highly risky approach in the event of soaring fuel prices or an economic downturn, and especially so in a country with a relatively small company car market such as the USA. The fact they decided to run up such an enormous deferred tax reserve was one of their accounting mistakes - that particular write-off contributed to a sizeable loss, however it was merely a book entry.

Continual loss-making is grave cause for concern and can only be carried on while the company has a positive balance sheet, since that denotes viability as a going concern. In other words, GM is continuing in business from its accumulated capital reserves. However, stories such as this are a case of journalists not being accountants. The media is out to sell stories - it's that simple. They often thrive on sensationalism to achieve that result. If you don't understand the mechanics of accountancy, you're not going to see the bigger picture.

Edited by aatbloke
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I need to make it big and bold to get my point across:

"GM IS DOING GREAT EXCEPT FOR THIS ONE-TIME CHARGE LEADING TO MASSIVE LOSSES" X 8 QUARTERS = GM IS NOT REALLY DOING GREAT

The "one-time charges" may have all the merit in the world. But the fact remains that GM needs to do one of the following: 1) reduce the amount of these one-time charges to a more manageable level i.e. so a profit does not turn into a massive loss, or 2) make enough of a profit so that the one-time charges are absorbed.

GM is a business, the goal of a business is to make money; GM is therefore not accomplishing its raison d'être. And by suspending dividends this past month, it isn't making its shareholders too happy, either.

Edited by Croc
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest aatbloke
Maybe I need to make it big and bold to get my point across:

"GM IS DOING GREAT EXCEPT FOR THIS ONE-TIME CHARGE LEADING TO MASSIVE LOSSES" X 8 QUARTERS = GM IS NOT REALLY DOING GREAT

The "one-time charges" may have all the merit in the world. But the fact remains that GM needs to do one of the following: 1) reduce the amount of these one-time charges to a more manageable level i.e. so a profit does not turn into a massive loss, or 2) make enough of a profit so that the one-time charges are absorbed.

GM is a business, the goal of a business is to make money; GM is therefore not accomplishing its raison d'être. And by suspending dividends this past month, it isn't making its shareholders too happy, either.

Your point is the same as everyone's, but you have to remember that net profit does not equal cash. Accumulated profits equal total assets (which includes cash) less total liabilities, less capital introduced/issued - the basic accounting equation. A loss for tax purposes can result from a number of accounting adjustments for which there is no cash entry - and this includes unusual items or "one-time" adjustments (to quote the media and other non-accountants). The write-off of the deferred tax reserve is one such example. So, before you go out and claim that "GM made a $15.5 billion loss, the world is coming to an end" - when that loss includes unusual items - you need to assess what those unusual items are, because they do not necessarily mean less cash in the bank.

GM is a business, and that goal is indeed to make money for its reason to exist. However, it only technically no longer becomes a going concern once the balance sheet falls into negativity, which GM's isn't.

Legally, dividends can only be paid from retained post-tax profits. If there is any degree of continual loss-making, dividends will be the first thing to go.

GM's problems are the result of basic poor decisions regarding its model range in North America. Too many brands, too many models competing with others within GM, and a concentration on high unit profit trucks and SUVs while ignoring having a comprehensive range of economy models to combat Toyota, Nissan and Honda - are floundering GM. Writing off costs associated with union decisions is unfortunately largely out of the company's control.

Like I said, accumulating losses are of grave concern, but you're jumping the gun by crowing over unusual item charges.

Edited by aatbloke
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest aatbloke
I assume these 'one time' charges are just a lot of accounting BS...that they are cooking the books...who knows what the real numbers are.

Like I said, they can range from actual costs - such as merger and strike costs - to accounting entries, such as large fixed asset write-offs and deferred tax charges and write-offs. But unusual items do require separate disclosure in the notes to a company's financial statements, so that investors and other interested parties can gain a better understanding of the P&L.

Link to post
Share on other sites
GM's problems are the result of basic poor decisions regarding its model range in North America. Too many brands, too many models competing with others within GM, and a concentration on high unit profit trucks and SUVs while ignoring having a comprehensive range of economy models to combat Toyota, Nissan and Honda - are floundering GM. Writing off costs associated with union decisions is unfortunately largely out of the company's control.

GM certainly could have prevented the strikes that occurred recently by having a more iron-clad contract that did not include such easily exploitable loopholes as has been discussed ad nauseum on these boards.

By the way, you are talking to someone with a business degree. I am well aware of all that accounting entails, and I am also very aware of when to call "BS" on a company's spin doctoring.

If a company is in such financial straits that it has to cut the meager dividend it was paying to shareholders, well that really does speak volumes about their financial health. This management team needs to go, like yesterday.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest aatbloke
By the way, you are talking to someone with a business degree. I am well aware of all that accounting entails, and I am also very aware of when to call "BS" on a company's spin doctoring.

With the greatest respect, a business studies degree doesn't hold a candle to holding a professional qualification with the ICAEW complete with nigh on 25 years in the field. And I know when the media are out to sell stories.

Edited by aatbloke
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest aatbloke
If a company is in such financial straits that it has to cut the meager dividend it was paying to shareholders, well that really does speak volumes about their financial health. This management team needs to go, like yesterday.

Cutting a dividend isn't necessarily a sign of a company's financial health - a company's board can forego voting a dividend for the sake of a major reinvestment, for example. If a company makes a loss, it cannot vote a dividend - they can only be paid from distributable post-tax profits.

Edited by aatbloke
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest aatbloke
GM certainly could have prevented the strikes that occurred recently by having a more iron-clad contract that did not include such easily exploitable loopholes as has been discussed ad nauseum on these boards.

For an educated person you certainly make union contract discussions sound like child's play. Once costs incurred relating to a striek begin, there's little control the company has over their mitigation in terms of creating an unusual item which would require separate disclosure.

Edited by aatbloke
Link to post
Share on other sites
With the greatest respect, a business studies degree doesn't hold a candle to holding a professional qualification with the ICAEW complete with nigh on 25 years in the field.
Fascinating. And what does this have to do with my being familiar with the basic principles of business accounting?

And I know when the media are out to sell stories.

They are always out to sell stories. :rolleyes:

For an educated person you certainly make union contract discussions sound like child's play.
Yeah, where did I do that, exactly?

Once costs incurred relating to a striek begin, there's little control the company has over their mitigation in terms of creating an unusual item which would require separate disclosure.

GM could have easily prevented the strike. But as always, it chose to place itself in a situation where it would be caught with its pants down.

Edited by Croc
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the bean counters who ran the company into the ground in the '90s that have caused this mess to pile up. The accounting BS that all big corporations are guilty of is now coming home to roost. It's the guys with the big, fancy degrees in accounting that cook up these wonderful schemes to 'cook the books' so the executives can get their fat pay raises, bonuses, etc.

The reason Japan Inc is thriving in this downturn is because a) their middle class has already paid the price back home and b) Japan Inc probably had their accountants all lined up and shot decades ago.

Personally, I have nothing against accountants as long as they are back in their coffin by sunrise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest aatbloke
Fascinating. And what does this have to do with my being familiar with the basic principles of business accounting?

In pretty much the same way that holding an O-level in Physics doesn't make me qualified enough to make me an engineer at NASA. I'm sure you understand a debit from a credit, but your comments aren't exactly what I'd expect to hear from a qualified accountant. Indeed, my own colleagues echoed my own sentiments in this situation - it's important to understand the nature of the unusual items before jumping to conclusions.

They are always out to sell stories. :rolleyes:

Yes they are - and they've done a pretty good job on you.

GM could have easily prevented the strike. But as always, it chose to place itself in a situation where it would be caught with its pants down.

Pandering to unions' every whim is probably the quickest way to go out of business.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest aatbloke
The reason Japan Inc is thriving in this downturn is because a) their middle class has already paid the price back home and b) Japan Inc probably had their accountants all lined up and shot decades ago.

The tripe you spout is sometimes rather incredible.

The reason Japanese manufacturers do so well is twofold: they produce goods the whole world wants and they intrinsically understand every market they sell in. Compare that to some of GM's pearlers, such as trying to flog a left-hand drive 4.3 litre petrol-engined Blazer in the UK at a time when the motorist was paying upwards of $6/gallon. That I'm afraid is sound accounting advice well and truly ignored.

Thank God I was born with common sense and, more importantly, here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The tripe you spout is sometimes rather incredible.

The reason Japanese manufacturers do so well is twofold: they produce goods the whole world wants and they intrinsically understand every market they sell in. Compare that to some of GM's pearlers, such as trying to flog a left-hand drive 4.3 litre petrol-engined Blazer in the UK at a time when the motorist was paying upwards of $6/gallon. That I'm afraid is sound accounting advice well and truly ignored.

Thank God I was born with common sense and, more importantly, here.

From the same society and the same strain of mental discipline which authored the Bataan Death March...

http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=586

"The Dark Side of the Toyota Prius," In These Times

By Paul Abowd

July 16, 2008

The National Labor Committee (NLC), a New York-based human rights group, has been investigating working conditions at Toyota Motor Corp., and the labor used to produce its best-selling Prius hybrid cars.

In its 65-page report released in June, NLC includes first-hand testimony of factory conditions in “Toyota City,” outside of Nagoya, Japan — less than 200 miles southwest of Tokyo — where the largest auto company in the world employs some 70,000 people.

The report alleges that Toyota exploits guest workers, mostly shipped in from China and Vietnam. According to the NLC, these workers are “stripped of their passports and often forced to work — including at subcontract plants supplying Toyota — 16 hours a day, seven days a week, while being paid less than half the legal minimum wage.” Workers are forced to live in company dormitories and deported for complaining about poor treatment, the report finds.

Low-wage temporary workers make up one-third of Toyota’s Prius assembly-line workers, mostly in the auto-parts supply chain. They are signed to contracts for periods as short as four months, and are paid only 60 percent of a full-time employee’s wage.

Parts plants run by subcontractors advertise standard, nine-hour, five-day-a-week jobs. But according to the NLC, “the typical shift was 15 to 16.5 hours a day, from 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. or 1:00 a.m.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
The tripe you spout is sometimes rather incredible.

The reason Japanese manufacturers do so well is twofold: they produce goods the whole world wants and they intrinsically understand every market they sell in. Compare that to some of GM's pearlers, such as trying to flog a left-hand drive 4.3 litre petrol-engined Blazer in the UK at a time when the motorist was paying upwards of $6/gallon. That I'm afraid is sound accounting advice well and truly ignored.

Thank God I was born with common sense and, more importantly, here.

Well, at least we agree on one thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In pretty much the same way that holding an O-level in Physics doesn't make me qualified enough to make me an engineer at NASA. I'm sure you understand a debit from a credit, but your comments aren't exactly what I'd expect to hear from a qualified accountant. Indeed, my own colleagues echoed my own sentiments in this situation - it's important to understand the nature of the unusual items before jumping to conclusions.
Again, this has almost nothing to do with what I've been posting about. You may very well be an A+ accountant, but as with previous "debates," your reading comprehension and logic skills seem unusually lacking. I'm not even going to try spelling it out for you again, because if you still think knowing the details of the one-time charges has any relevance whatsoever on the logical argument I have been making, then you are not following it at all.

Yes they are - and they've done a pretty good job on you.
Really? How so? Show me anywhere that I've asserted any of the media narratives. I've never complained about "too many brands," "Pontiac is dead," "Buick is dead," or that "GM is going bankrupt." All I've pointed out is that GM's financial situation is not looking good and has not for a while, and that's something anyone with half a brain can figure out. 55 year historical lows with regards to the stockprice show that. Cutting dividends hint toward that. Selling brands/divisions illustrates that, as well as the massive quarterly losses.

Pandering to unions' every whim is probably the quickest way to go out of business.
OK, you just illustrated in technicolor that you have no knowledge of the situation I am referring to, whatsoever. Pandering to unions? Yeah, not what I was suggesting at all. Maybe you should read up on the strike threads regarding Fairfax, say THIS THREAD.

Here's a good quote:

The Locals can do what they like...there are rumors of some chicanery regarding the more radical plants' votes (keep in mind that Union Leadership get to sit on the multi-Billion $ VEBA and milk it for all it's worth, so their interest is vastly different from the guy on the line.)

MORE IMPORTANTLY GM should have anticipated the backlash and contracted against it--the strike threat was a joke and everyone knew it--instead, we have yet another example of how poorly GM management functions. The one hot product in a volume segment and they're blowing it!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest aatbloke
Again, this has almost nothing to do with what I've been posting about. You may very well be an A+ accountant, but as with previous "debates," your reading comprehension and logic skills seem unusually lacking. I'm not even going to try spelling it out for you again, because if you still think knowing the details of the one-time charges has any relevance whatsoever on the logical argument I have been making, then you are not following it at all.

Well, I'll leave this thread to the blue-collars who love to chastise those in professions and make their own - often flawed - interpretations of the situation. Why? Because you need the technical ability to understand a set of financial statements because you make an accurate judgement. If you understand the basic accounting equation, you'll exercise the same caution.

The flawed logic unfortunately comes from beliefs such as "GM makes a $15 billion loss, they're out of money." My logic comes from the fact that I've seen GM make piss-poor management decisions when it comes to the products it delivers. That's why it (currently) doesn't hold a candle to the Japanese marques - a sad, but very real, fact. And what behaviour results on here? Blaming the Japanese for running rings around GM - now that's poor logic skills by anyone's standard.

Edited by aatbloke
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest aatbloke
From the same society and the same strain of mental discipline which authored the Bataan Death March...

http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=586

"The Dark Side of the Toyota Prius," In These Times

By Paul Abowd

July 16, 2008

The National Labor Committee (NLC), a New York-based human rights group, has been investigating working conditions at Toyota Motor Corp., and the labor used to produce its best-selling Prius hybrid cars.

In its 65-page report released in June, NLC includes first-hand testimony of factory conditions in “Toyota City,” outside of Nagoya, Japan — less than 200 miles southwest of Tokyo — where the largest auto company in the world employs some 70,000 people.

The report alleges that Toyota exploits guest workers, mostly shipped in from China and Vietnam. According to the NLC, these workers are “stripped of their passports and often forced to work — including at subcontract plants supplying Toyota — 16 hours a day, seven days a week, while being paid less than half the legal minimum wage.” Workers are forced to live in company dormitories and deported for complaining about poor treatment, the report finds.

Low-wage temporary workers make up one-third of Toyota’s Prius assembly-line workers, mostly in the auto-parts supply chain. They are signed to contracts for periods as short as four months, and are paid only 60 percent of a full-time employee’s wage.

Parts plants run by subcontractors advertise standard, nine-hour, five-day-a-week jobs. But according to the NLC, “the typical shift was 15 to 16.5 hours a day, from 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. or 1:00 a.m.”

And in Burnaston they provide every employee with a company car! The callous swines ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder how the niche product V-10 NSX will play out when it comes out. Will the media crucify Honda for bringing out such a car in todays environment.

Did the media crucify Toyota for bringing out their line of gas pigs?

Nope...

So, www.notgonnahappen.com.

It's not about the product, it's about the company (brand, division, model, etc.) that the media wants to eliminate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The flawed logic unfortunately comes from beliefs such as "GM makes a $15 billion loss, they're out of money." My logic comes from the fact that I've seen GM make piss-poor management decisions when it comes to the products it delivers. That's why it (currently) doesn't hold a candle to the Japanese marques - a sad, but very real, fact. And what behaviour results on here? Blaming the Japanese for running rings around GM - now that's poor logic skills by anyone's standard.

Yet again your reading comprehension is virtually non-existant. I've never asserted the above. Never. And I've never blamed the Japanese for GM's poor management decisions. Never.

Pompous fool. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest aatbloke
Yet again your reading comprehension is virtually non-existant. I've never asserted the above. Never. And I've never blamed the Japanese for GM's poor management decisions. Never.

Pompous fool. :rolleyes:

Are you always so self-obsessed that you think I'm merely referring to you? I'm referring to general sentiment by a number of GM hardliners on these boards. My point is simple and I'll reiterate: never judge the bottom line until you've assessed any and all unusual items disclosed in the accounts and indeed, any additional reserved contingent liabilities.

I'm not going to get into the petulant habit of reciprocating name-calling online, although I dare say I'd have a few choice words for you face-to-face.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you always so self-obsessed that you think I'm merely referring to you?
What do you think it means when you use the quote feature? :rolleyes:

I'm not going to get into the petulant habit of reciprocating name-calling online, although I dare say I'd have a few choice words for you face-to-face.

I dare say I'd be laughing face-to-face. Seriously...if you relented on your constant "I/me/my ___ is better than you/your/yours" line of posting on this site, you'd be taken a lot more seriously. When you argue with someone for no reason other than you think you are better than them, without even addressing the points of their hypothesis, you won't be taken seriously.

I can't take you seriously. As it is, you are the most one-note poster on this site, responding to anyone who disagrees with you with an irrelevant and semi-incoherent rant about petulant teenagers who hate the Japanese and blame them for all of GM's problems. Which generally isn't even the case on this site.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest aatbloke
I can't take you seriously. As it is, you are the most one-note poster on this site, responding to anyone who disagrees with you with an irrelevant and semi-incoherent rant about petulant teenagers who hate the Japanese and blame them for all of GM's problems. Which generally isn't even the case on this site.

All I can say to this comment is "can't see the wood for the trees." Just look at your chum Carbiz's posts regarding the Japanese. He claims to be 47 and in my opinion, should know better. If you were well versed as an accountant, you'd agree about being cautious over publicised profitability because there are large unusual items that can come into play which doesn't affect GM's current assets whatsoever - such as last year's deferred tax reserve write-off. Most laymen wouldn't understand how this can affect the bottom line - and I wouldn't expect them to - but in GM's case it made a material difference to the understanding of the financial statements. As it stands, I take your comments about understanding a set of financial statements as seriously as PCS' claim that he was provided a 7 litre prototype sedan in Switzerland.

I don't care if anyone on here agrees with me or not over this. As a professional in this field, I recognise the issue. By the same token, if a NASA engineer discussed a problem with the Space Shuttles heat-deflection shields, I wouldn't have the first clue where to comment and I wouldn't expect that said engineer to take my opinions too seriously. For every one hardcore GM fan on here who doesn't agree with me, there are plenty of car enthusiasts - and professionals in my field - who do. It's nothing to do with being from different continents, or even different cultures - but everything to do with different mindsets.

Edited by aatbloke
Link to post
Share on other sites

so what does a shareholder have to do, to get a closer look at the financials...

how can you have a revenue of 38 billion dollars and not have any room for extra items? where could it all possibly go? okay so the revenue isnt 42 like it has been recently... but still... when you deal with that kind of money, you'd think there would be a lot of fat to cut off...

i want to see a more indepth budget report then the lowsy financial balance sheet they give once a quarter

Link to post
Share on other sites
All I can say to this comment is "can't see the wood for the trees." Just look at your chum Carbiz's posts regarding the Japanese. He claims to be 47 and in my opinion, should know better. If you were well versed as an accountant, you'd agree about being cautious over publicised profitability because there are large unusual items that can come into play which doesn't affect GM's current assets whatsoever - such as last year's deferred tax reserve write-off. Most laymen wouldn't understand how this can affect the bottom line - and I wouldn't expect them to - but in GM's case it made a material difference to the understanding of the financial statements. As it stands, I take your comments about understanding a set of financial statements as seriously as PCS' claim that he was provided a 7 litre prototype sedan in Switzerland.

I don't care if anyone on here agrees with me or not over this. As a professional in this field, I recognise the issue. By the same token, if a NASA engineer discussed a problem with the Space Shuttles heat-deflection shields, I wouldn't have the first clue where to comment and I wouldn't expect that said engineer to take my opinions too seriously. For every one hardcore GM fan on here who doesn't agree with me, there are plenty of car enthusiasts - and professionals in my field - who do. It's nothing to do with being from different continents, or even different cultures - but everything to do with different mindsets.

The trouble is, every time any debate involves you, it turns into a slug-fest and name calling. You bring out your your resume (which can be whatever you choose it to be) and use it to beat others with an opinon different than yours. Some people are easily intimidated when a poster breaks out the thesaurus - I am not one of them.

Do you know what MY resume is? No. Because I haven't said what it is. What did I take in University? Curious? I am 47, which gives me a wealth of life experience to back up my assertions. You don't see me going around knocking the 20 year olds on this site just because they have their own ideas, do you?

My mother is a retired CA and taught me plenty. I don't blame Japan Inc. for GM's woes: I blame Washington and Ottawa for not seeing that it is NOT a level playing field. Of course Toyota and friends are going to accept whatever help their government hands them.

I don't chime in about what GM should or should not do in Europe because a) I don't know Europe and b) I don't care. If GM and/or Ford do go bankrupt here or get 'bought' out, YOU should care because Japan Inc is not going to have the same interests at heart with respect to their European holding/heritage etc. as Ford and GM do.

I see the same type of polarized debates on some of the political forums I am on. The social engineers immediately cry 'racist', 'bigot,' 'seal killer' whenever someone in their midst disagrees with them. They are too obtuse to realize how it seriously undermines their position with the 'undecideds.'

Frankly, from where I sit, GM and Ford's plight mirror exactly what is wrong with our entire Western Civilization. No, I do not think I am overstating the case. We in the West must learn to reap the whirlwind of global trade and protectionism or we will be consumed by it.

Violence (or aggression) is the last refuge of the incompetent. Great quote. It gets more profound with age.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Good grief, Americans ... I'm not being a "smartass." I'm a qualified accountant. I'm telling you that unusual items, or one-time charges, are quite common with large corporations. Usually they're the product of accounting entries, but they can be expenditures caused by unprecedented situations - such as strikes or mergers. An unusually small profit or large loss can be the result of an unusual item, and GAAP/IAS requires that they have separate disclosure in the notes to the financial statements.

I'm not making excuses for GM - they've been running an aimless company now for the past twenty years, and that's why Toyota has been running rings around them. While Toyota has spent the last ten years in North America strategically placing models in virtually every segment from B-segment through to C-segment hybrids to full-size SUVs, GM has concentrated only on larger vehicles which yield the greatest unit profit - a highly risky approach in the event of soaring fuel prices or an economic downturn, and especially so in a country with a relatively small company car market such as the USA. The fact they decided to run up such an enormous deferred tax reserve was one of their accounting mistakes - that particular write-off contributed to a sizeable loss, however it was merely a book entry.

Continual loss-making is grave cause for concern and can only be carried on while the company has a positive balance sheet, since that denotes viability as a going concern. In other words, GM is continuing in business from its accumulated capital reserves. However, stories such as this are a case of journalists not being accountants. The media is out to sell stories - it's that simple. They often thrive on sensationalism to achieve that result. If you don't understand the mechanics of accountancy, you're not going to see the bigger picture.

Yeah, but a one-time loss is still a loss. You keep getting hit with massive one-time losses and you're still out of business. All it means is that the particular loss is not from continuing operations. It would be a lot better to be getting one-time gains wouldn't it? Right now GM keeps getting blasted by huge one-time losses and they're still losing money from continuing operations also. The cash drain is massive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest aatbloke
The trouble is, every time any debate involves you, it turns into a slug-fest and name calling. You bring out your your resume (which can be whatever you choose it to be) and use it to beat others with an opinon different than yours. Some people are easily intimidated when a poster breaks out the thesaurus - I am not one of them.

Do you know what MY resume is? No. Because I haven't said what it is. What did I take in University? Curious? I am 47, which gives me a wealth of life experience to back up my assertions. You don't see me going around knocking the 20 year olds on this site just because they have their own ideas, do you?

My mother is a retired CA and taught me plenty. I don't blame Japan Inc. for GM's woes: I blame Washington and Ottawa for not seeing that it is NOT a level playing field. Of course Toyota and friends are going to accept whatever help their government hands them.

I don't chime in about what GM should or should not do in Europe because a) I don't know Europe and b) I don't care. If GM and/or Ford do go bankrupt here or get 'bought' out, YOU should care because Japan Inc is not going to have the same interests at heart with respect to their European holding/heritage etc. as Ford and GM do.

I see the same type of polarized debates on some of the political forums I am on. The social engineers immediately cry 'racist', 'bigot,' 'seal killer' whenever someone in their midst disagrees with them. They are too obtuse to realize how it seriously undermines their position with the 'undecideds.'

Frankly, from where I sit, GM and Ford's plight mirror exactly what is wrong with our entire Western Civilization. No, I do not think I am overstating the case. We in the West must learn to reap the whirlwind of global trade and protectionism or we will be consumed by it.

Violence (or aggression) is the last refuge of the incompetent. Great quote. It gets more profound with age.

Interesting that so far in this discussion, Croc labelled me as a "fool" and you deem that all accountants "should be shot" - so I see what you mean regarding your above quote referencing violence and aggression.

As a qualified accountant with many years experience both within and connected to the motor industry (no Carbiz, I don't change my stories like some of your hardline chums) then should the subject be an accounting issue, then naturally I'm going to step in with my professional opinion. That holds true irrespective of the country in which the issue is taking place. I've not once broken out my CV for anybody, but I do know that an experienced car mechanic would shudder if I said I could safely mix a couple of old cupped cross-ply tyres with some new radials. By the same token, an experienced accountant would shudder at someone making judgements to a set of accounts without analysing unusual items and brushing them off as an excuse!

There's nothing thesaurus-like about my dialogue whatsoever - that's yet another cheap shot which has gained you nothing.

Unlike you, I'm not in the least terrified of foreign competition; it makes the European arena extraordinarily interesting and I see the foreign ownership of companies manufacturing in the UK a benefit to the British motor industry. Furthermore, Toyota, Nissan and Honda (collectively known as "Japan Inc" as you eloquently put it) have each maintained massive investment in the UK motor industry for many years - their interests are quite clear.

On the other hand though, it's also interesting that you deem Ford and GM as taking "interest" in European marques' heritage, when I think of recent examples under Ford's jurisdiction, such as Jaguar's X-Type: take one Mondeo, shod it with four wheel drive and give it a body which apes a small XJ. Then there's GM's antics with Saab: pin a 1988 Cavalier/Vectra chassis to a body which looked like a Saab and voila, a 1993 900 series, or even worse - take a Chevrolet SUV and Subaru Impreza and given them Saab snouts. None of these examples is cherishing a famed European marque by any stretch of the imagination.

I think the real intimidation comes from your side of the fence: from the word go I've explained issues as to why profits can't all go overseas and how a company's domicile works for subsidiaries such as Vauxhall. Just because the reality of how company law works doesn't fit in with your child-like dreamed ideals for GM gives you absolutely no excuse to chastise me or belittle my profession whatsoever.

Edited by aatbloke
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest aatbloke
Yeah, but a one-time loss is still a loss. You keep getting hit with massive one-time losses and you're still out of business.

That depends on the nature of the loss and the unusual item. Last year's deferred tax write-off was simply negating years of accumulated book-entry credits to the P&L - so the overall effect on the balance sheet was zero.

This is why it is very important to analyse unusual items - because they do not necessarily mean physical expenditure.

Edited by aatbloke
Link to post
Share on other sites
That depends on the nature of the loss and the unusual item. Last year's deferred tax write-off was simply negating years of accumulated book-entry credits to the P&L - so the overall effect on the balance sheet was zero.

This is why it is very important to analyse unusual items - because they do not necessarily mean physical expenditure.

couldnt an asset that has depreciated in value be considered a loss, even if no cash or mortagage was involved?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest aatbloke
couldnt an asset that has depreciated in value be considered a loss, even if no cash or mortagage was involved?

The cost of all fixed assets with the exception of land (in most cases) is depreciated or amortised over the asset's estimated useful life and charged to the P&L. However the charge is not usually tax relievable, so for tax purposes a different method is used - such as capital allowances in EU states.

The cost of the asset less accumulated depreciation sits on the balance sheet as the net book value. When the asset is sold, it is compared to the NBV. If the amount exceeds the NBV, it is credited to the P&L, if not then it's a charge. In extreme cases of very large credits or charges, it can form the basis of an unusual item.

Edited by aatbloke
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...