network engineer

I think everyone has a belief that a bankruptcy will lead to an end of the UAW. It probably will not. It probably will however, lead to the BK judge voiding the labor contracts. The judge cannot however, void the union or bust it up. The union will still exist and be present when GM emerges from bankruptcy. Hopefully GM doesn't use abuse the UAW during their BK. When GM emerges it will be important to still have good labor relations. The best GM could do would be to offer a better package to non union employees, and get the UAW to disband naturally.

I think a better analogy would be. Blaming management is like blaming a patient because they were shot. The patient may be the innocent bystander in a drive by at which case they're not at fault. The patient could have also been in a bad neighborhood and got shot in which case, they're partially to blame for putting themselves in a bad situation. I definitely believe that GM would have the ability to negotiate it's way back to health if the credit crisis had not occurred. I also see that Toyota and Honda are not going bankrupt because of this. GM's management is responsible for the shape it was in when the credit crisis hit. It's like taking an old rusty ship with a broken bilge pump out and getting caught in a storm. Sure the boat may have been rehabilitated and safe if the storm didn't hit, but what the hell was it doing in that kind of shape to begin with. I hope that GM gets the support it needs. Having a manufacturing base is a matter of national security as well as important to protecting the value of the dollar. If we have no products to export then our dollar will devalue further as no countries will want our money, because there will be nothing to buy from us. I hear this fantasy that we sell ideas now not products. Unfortunately it turns out people in developing countries are just as intelligent as we are and will come up with ideas of their own. We cannot sustain this country if we don't make our own products.

Hyundai would. Consumers will be afraid of spending more money as the market continues to decline. Hyundai's affordable high value cars will be very attractive. Many consumers will fear losing warranty coverage will avoid American autos from bankrupt companies.

Yahoo finance lists both Apple and Google as having enterprise values below their market cap. I assumed this was possible if a company was debt free and had a substantial cash reserve. Is yahoo referring to something else?

I apologize. When I say poorly engineered, I was referring only to the lack of trunk space for a weekend getaway, which may have cost many buyers. What I want GM to repeat is getting cars to market that do not water down their design from their amazing concepts. The vehicle should be released when it has both beautiful design and excellent engineering. I think we can both agree on that, yes?

First I just want to say that I'm disappointed by the way you started your post. I would be embarrassed to start a post by insulting or humiliating someone else and would appreciate the same from others. Secondly, I am not an expert in financial matters. I do however, understand basic cash flow and can understand when a company is in a dangerous position. Further reading on the internet indicates that only when they are only unable to pay their obligations do they be come bankrupt, which agrees with your post. Now, that I understand things a little better let me say this. GM certainly APPEARS to be in an awful financial position. They have not made a profit since 2004. Although GM has a considerable amount of cash, they can only continue to lose money every quarter until that cash runs out. If that becomes the case, GM would begin to default on their obligations and would be forced to refinance their debt or ask for protection, right? Their enterprise value is, as you say, the total cost of a company's market cap and debt or the total value of a company's business. To buy GM and be debt free would take about $26.5 Billion so their enterprise value is $26.5 Billion. That certainly doesn't look as bad. However, if we compare that to Toyota we see that Toyota has an enterprise value of $224B. Their market cap is about $118B, which means they have $106B in debt, which seems extremely high, although Toyota is profitable and making money after paying back their debts as agreed GM is not profitable, which would seem to indicate they are losing money after paying back their debts as agreed. Is that right? Compared to GM we see that while GM's stock is worth FAR less their debt is also only 22.8B, which appears to be a good thing. It means however that to purchase the company you would have buy their all of their stock and pay another $22.8B in debt. Toyota is in the same situation, as you would have to buy all of their stock and pay another $106B in debt to own the company outright. That seems to reason that it would be better, financially, for GM if their Market Cap was higher than their enterprise value, indicating that they had more than enough cash to pay any debts off in full. Now I know the difference between an asset and a liability. A liability costs you money while an asset makes you money. Today if I were to pay the enterprise value for GM I would then own a liability as they would lose money every month. Toyota on the other hand would be an asset as they would give me a return on my investment every month. Of course either company could be come an asset or liability at anytime depending on their business. Now, I would appreciate any corrections that would help me see the situation more clearly. I think my initial post is how most people would perceive GM's financial situation. What is the correct way to perceive it. Your post would seem to indicate that you understand the position they are in, so I appreciate your feedback.

GM has actually lost $62.8 Billion in JUST the last 12 months. They have lost over $70 Billion in the since the start of 2005. AND this does not include the third quarter 2008 loses either. Based on the acceleration seen from Q1(-$3B) to Q2(-$15B) and if that continues to grow at that rate GM would see their losses increase to almost $100 Billion dollars. GM is only worth $3.83 Billion as that is what their current market cap or current value of all stock is worth. Now if you consider that at the end of the second quarter 2008 GM was worth NEGATIVE $56.96 Billion when considering all of their assets and liabilities and had a cash flow of -$15.471 Billion GM is already Bankrupt. They just haven't filed the paperwork. GM could not pay back it's outstanding debt if it had to today by selling off assets. That is the very definition of bankruptcy. GM says they won't declare it, but that doesn't mean they aren't bankrupt. So if GM delays all R&D spending through 2010 that should ease their financial burden in the short run, but have a serious impact in the long. GM doesn't report their R&D so we don't know how efficient it is. I have to wonder though. Microsoft for instance spent $2.4 Billion in the last quarter on R&D and Apple spent $292 Million. So Microsoft spent over 8 times what Apple did and has almost nothing to show for it, while Apple has brand new iPods, iPhones, and Laptops. You have to wonder whether GM is spending money like M$ or Apple. Also, I saw a nice quote about Apple from when Steve Jobs came back as interim CEO and it reminded me a lot of GM. Steve was talking about the automakers and their concept cars. He said that you go to the auto show and you see an amazing concept, but when the real model hits the showroom it sucks. He said what happens is that the designers design a great product and then the finance people say you can do this or that and so it gets worse, then the engineers say you can do this or that and it gets worse still and then finally the manufacturing department says you can't do this or that and it gets a lot worse. Pretty soon you get the car to market and it's a TOTAL letdown. Now when Apple designed the original iMac (the one with the clear see through case that was so hot about 10 years ago), they showed the design to their different departments internally as their new product direction. Shortly after that Steve received reports from the engineering, finance and manufacturing departments about why they couldn't do this or that. Steve called them together and explained that he wasn't asking them to give him reasons why they couldn't build it. He told them their jobs were to find a way to build the design. Some people said it couldn't be done and they were told to leave. It turns out someone else took their jobs and found a way to overcome these problems and get the product built. GM's problems are the same that Apple had with that first iMac. They build amazing concept cars and then their internal departments tell the leaders why it can't be done. Unfortunately the board doesn't have the confidence to tell their subordinates to find a way to make it happen. And we get cars like the G6 concept that are truly stunning, that get turned into crap like the G6 production car. Only once that I can remember has a car made it to market looking pretty much like the concept and that was the Solstice. Unfortunately the car was poorly engineered and ended up being to impractical for most people to consider. But still it looked pretty much just like the concept car and it sold like hot cakes when it was launched. Of course dealers marked them up over sticker and drove demand down pretty fast, but still. I guess what I'm trying to say is that GM shouldn't be cutting R&D, they should be cutting the negative Nancys that tell the CEO, no I can't build your car that way let's make it worse to accommodate my lake of innovation or gumption. Then they can spend the money on design and innovation that translates to an awesome product on the street. That would also eliminate the bureaucracy, because you know that if you can't get the job done they'll find someone who can. On a side note, I'd also like GM to keep it's mouth shut about upcoming models. I love the Volt, but I really think GM messed up by telling the press they were going to build it. GM should have simply waited until they had the production car ready to go to production then Introduced the product to a stunned and delighted press and public, with manufacturing starting in just a few short weeks an delivery coming, etc.... Instead they announce pretty soon after the concept had made it's rounds that due to impressive demand they would be developing a real car to become available by 2010. Now all of their competitors know GMs product roadmap and can plan accordingly. Before this Toyota though plug ins wouldn't work. Now that GM is building the Volt Toyota is racing to get their version into a Prius ASAP. If GM had kept it's mouth shut they could have had the market to themselves for much longer.

Good! One less thing to worry about. Now they can just work on fine tuning the electrical system and motors for maximum efficiency. Now that they have their batteries nailed down, what's stopping GM from tooling up for a late 2009/early 2010 release as a 2010 model? Especially considering their current market position, it could only help to get people into showrooms quicker. Also, this powertrain needs to be proliferated across ALL of GM's vehicles. I see no reason why we couldn't see this as an option in every vehicle except the Corvette.

Did you get that pic snapped? Glad your coworker was ok. How about the driver of the Caravan?

What happened to the thread about GM's C.O.O. getting to the bottom of unacceptable losses. I tried to locate it via search but could not. Then I clicked on it in my browsers history but find that the board returns an error message that files may be missing. What gives?

Owning a Buick Rainier, I can say that they were good trucks, but not really nice. Mine is a 2004 bought 2 years ago used. It's been a nice vehicle, but I have to say the interior was not up to snuff for a $45000 vehicle when it was released. Besides it was competing with the same vehicle at Chevy ,GMC and Isuzu. I've always found it hard to believe it makes sense to sell the same vehicle at nearly the same price on so many different brands. I thought Bob Lutz said badge engineering was over, but then I see the Enclave, Acadia, Outlook, Traverse quartet and have to wonder.

I don't think most people do it that way. I think they hit the front page to see what's new. For a while I would visit the front page, not see any new news in the last week or two or three! and just think that nothing new had been posted. I'd then go over to GMI and autoblog where I would most likely find newer stories right on the front page. I also find that I sometimes post a comment in a thread and then can't remember what thread it was. On other forums I can go into the user CP and see what forums I've posted in recently, or what threads have replies after mine. A nice feature for getting me to revisit the thread and keep it alive. I'm pretty sure this forum could also do this. I've been coming to and posting on C&G for the better part of a decade, but I post less and less, because it hasn't kept up with the times. If C&G wants to remain relevant we need to keep the front page hopping news, so that it gets into the search engines and let us reply directly to stories. I'll bet many people are checking sites on their phones nowadays too. I pop websites up on my iPhone all the time. I love how, if I go to many of my favorite sites, they automatically load a mobile version. it's got a little ad at the top of every page, usually a top story with a photo, then about 10 text links of the latest news or whatever. Very handy. C&G on my iPhone is kind of a pain the ass, and on my last non apple phone it was completely unusable.

I think it's a combination of that and the front page is no longer relevant. Blogs are what's big now. The forums are great, but if you look at the front page we have 7 updates in the last 7 1/2 weeks. It makes it look like nothings going on on the site, so I may as well not visit the forums. If you look at say GMI they have 5 stories in the last 2 1/2 weeks and autoblog has, well dozens and dozens. Both of those other sites also allow you to post comments directly to the story. C&G locks them. So when I look at GMIs artical on the $25B I see it has 108 replies and the C&G has 0 replies. It just makes it look like C&G has nothing going on. We need new articles posted on the front page daily and to have the number of comments be displayed on the front page, or allow us to respond directly to that article. We may also want to consider making it look more like a blog. Also what happened to the other guys news that used to be on the front page. C&G is about GM and GM is part of the automotive industry. I want to get news about the whole American industry. I can go to other sites and get that. Now about the loans program. I hope GM uses it to do additional development and doesn't just use it to replace $5B they would have spent on these projects anyway. Fuel efficiency is very much on the forefront of car shoppers today. A walk around my local Chevy dealer revealed nearly all of the vehicles they had were 4 cylinder models. They had Malibus, Cobalts and HHRs all up front. The Traverse, Equinox and Corvettes were all pushed to the back of the lot.

He didn't really say anything. What do you see for GMs future? -Well it's tough times. (I hadn't noticed) -From my perspective it's quite bright. (Well I'm glad you didn't just say GM Has a Great future as if it was fact. I have much more faith in your "In my opinion" type line) -We have massive legacy costs. (And so do many companies that are wildly profitable) -Push vehicles into emerging markets like China and South America (Where we've actually been for decades) -Focus on good design (OK that's a good one) -GMs global design team is REigniting it's passion for cars and trucks (WHAT! So for the last 5 years(2003) your designers weren't passionate? No wonder the company is in dire straits) -So where is GM going in the future? -We're looking at hybrid technology and fuel efficiency (Just now? Thanks) -We're looking at "The electrification of the vehicle" (this is exciting) -We're excited by Fuel Cells down the road. (Infrastructure?, or do I do hydrolysis at home to get my hydrogen?) -Even today we're doing bio fuels (Which get worse mileage right? Oh and the fuel costs enough to make it more expensive than regular gas after you factor in the lower mileage! Keep researching) So GM is doing the same things it's been doing for the last few years. [sarcasm]Nice. I have faith that GM will turn around! [/sarcasm] While I know he certainly can't talk about any secret technologies or plans he may be working on, I don't think coming out on the very unforgiving internet no less, and telling us what we already know is really a good strategy to build faith in the company. Especially if you're going to come out and say hey we're going to be doing pretty much the same things going forward. Umm so it hasn't worked so far, in fact it's gotten worse. Yeah, let's do more of the same! Now what's my golden parachute worth?

The Volt needs to make money. GM can't afford to lose money. Besides, the VOLT isn't going to draw people into the showroom, who then decide to buy another Chevy vehicle.(Well maybe the Malibu Hybrid), or what little do won't offset the loss in profit from selling the Volt at a loss. GM must price the vehicle to be profitable. If they can't price it to be profitable and sell it then they shouldn't do it. GM has enough liabilities as it is. They just added a 4th shift to the Cobalt plant. The Cobalt loses money! So GM is adding a 4th shift that will make them LESS profitable. GM needs to price it's vehicles profitably. If they can't sell a vehicle profitably then they need to drop it from the lineup.

They will. They $7500 doesn't come off the sticker price. The customer still has to pony up $40k to buy the vehicle. They get to apply a $7500 tax credit to their federal tax return. That means the customer will get +$7500 added to any possible return or -$7500 added to any taxes they may owe. You still have to be able to handle the monthly payment on the vehicle. The tax credit doesn't help people afford the new technology, but it gives people that can extra incentive to buy it. By leaving the transaction price high in this way, also makes the new technology more exclusive and helps drive demand. Everybody wants what they can't have.

From Auto Blog http://www.autoblog.com/2008/09/16/video-w...-volt-interior/. The center stack draws a lot of attention for its shape, unique touch interface and bright white surfacing. Volt buyers will be able to choose from several colors for the center stack, however, including white, metallic black, and even green. The gear shifter fits right into the center stack and pulls out to put the Volt into reverse, neutral or drive. The Volt is also keyless, and the driver needs only the key fob in his pocket to start the electric motor.

Couple of things I noticed from the pics of the interior. 1. There are phone answer / hang up buttons on the steering wheel. 2. Next to the phone buttons is a some kind of wheel. With Volume controls next to that. 3. There is no 3.5 mm jack visible in the photos. How do we hook up an iPod/iPhone? Perhaps they've done it right this time an have iPod control in this vehicle? 4. There are record and delete buttons on the center stack. Press release says this is for navigation as well as to record music to it. 5. The center display says 82% charge and 27 miles range. That equals to about 3 miles a percent or 33 mile range on EV, however the press release says 40 miles. 6. The left side of the steering wheel has what appears to be adaptive cruise control. 7. Everything appears to be touch including the door panel controls for the windows and locks.

Interior shot anyone? Original Here Here is the competing interior that we saw in the ABC video

Here's a shot I snapped from the video. Hard to tell what the interior will look like. It appears they have several versions. Volt Image About a year ago there were reports from Europe that Apple was collaborating with auto companies to develop a vehicle head unit. Reports surfaced multiple times for both Volkswagen and Mercedes. With the good press the MS Sync system has gotten, I wonder if Apple has indeed been working on a system and that we might see it debut in the Volt. That would be great. Imagine pulling into the garage and it connects to your home WIFI network then syncs with your iTunes library, so all of your photos, music, and movies are right in your car. Going on a road trip? Don't worry about DVD's the kids can just que up the movie from the iTunes library. That would sell me on the car right there.

We can only hope it's an Alpha. How I loved the Holden concept.

I'm always amused by comments like this, because they have no basis in reality. So tell us then. How did Bush cause this and how will his removal from office fix it. Please be specific as I'm very curious. I was under the impression that the President signed bills into law that were designed by Congress and also ran the Army. I'm confused as to how, then that the President has negatively affected the economy. Which laws that Congress passed did the President sign into Law that have had this affect? I know he did the Tax cuts, but that resulted in a boost to the economy and have given the average family over $1000 in tax savings, so it's obviously not that. What was it that he did?

1. Yes 2000 Pontiac Sunfire (traded it in) 2. Potentially a G8 GT. Good value for under $30k The GXP will probably be outside my price range

1. 1 rainier 2. Zero

Apple didn't invent the technology behind the first Mac or the iPod. They just put it together in a way no one had before and then marketed the crap out of it. So today they have almost $20 billion in cash and no debt. Yet no one disputes that they invented either product.