turbo200

calm down. why would president care for power with GM? they're not that big a deal, especially with wall street. they've been the black sheep for years, arguably the step child looked over by everyone because of all the bad things dragging business profitability down, and yet they employed enough and sold enough to stay relevant and necessary. I repeat, why the heck would president care about a power grab. he's one of the most popular presidents we've ever had, he's consistently most watched, his opinions sway public polls, the people are on his side. he could take over citi and that would be good with the people if he explained it was necessary. why would he care about GM?

the section where it discusses GM's profitability going forward and how quickly they'd pay back and get in control of thier liabilities--GM expected to keep market share at a near constant or start losing it at a rate of .3%; the problem is GM has been losing it at a rate of .7% going back to the 90's........and that's without slashing fleets and closing as many brands as they will. was someone drunk when they came up with that plan, stupid, or just plain not trying?

GM's most fatal flaw today? this no longer is child's play; people all over the internet are discussing intricate details of this, we're more informed and better equipped today to know what is going on inside the company. aside from that, there's more casual observers than ever before, the people who just know some of the details and maybe wrongly informed or half as informed as we are. Where's the freakin statement of assurance? Where's the public statement releasing public records and achievements of Fritz Henderson? Where's the assurance that GM is going to get through this? that they're going to do thier best to fulfill viability requirements going forward. that they're working their hardest with the dispatched team to get concessions and work on more aggressive restructuring.... yet again they are a child lost in the woods, seemingly, not being able to answer any questions about when where why and how. only because they themselves don't hold the answers. seriously, did the PR department just stop receiving payments a last october when GM was running out of cash and get completely dismantled? I haven't heard anything out of them except for the monthly sales reports.

forsake progress for progress' sake? a dell computer should look the same, act the same, last the same amount of time, break down the same, today as a 1994 computer. prize for great reasoning of the day! really, people who argue things should just stay the same or they're as good as they should be. that is the most backward kind of belief i have ever heard. we should always be getting better. that's the way our lives are, that's the way we want to be as humans.

yes but it's nothing abnormal for the stock market to react to a plan that involves risk and potential impact. cbs corp. is down on the loss of ad revenues coming from auto sector. does that make sense? well the stock market is a predicator, it's based on future revenue. and right now, they are uncertain, as we are all, about how and what could happen. it's not something shocking nor troublesome like you are trying to paint it. the stocks will see some major gyrations as the quarters come to an end and results start pouring in, very soon. the doubt of and bad blood towards obama and the words against him are coming from detractors who've always been detractors. nothing more nothing less. edit: i believe obama when he says the gov't doesn't want control of GM. why would anyone want control of it? they already have a big stake in citi, they could have taken it over plenty of times, and yet the laws they wrote prevent that exact thing from happening. they do not want to nationalize. the reason they've pumped money into GM is because like oldsmoboi said GM came for money, GM is big, and obama didn't want the job losses as well as subsequent economical impact during already bad times.

MORE: look at how clean and efficient this is: GM earns a disproportionate share of its profits from high-margin trucks and SUVs and is thus vulnerable to energy cost-driven shifts in consumer demand. For example, of its top 20 profit contributors in 2008, only nine were cars. GM is at least one generation behind Toyota on advanced, “green” powertrain development. In an attempt to leapfrog Toyota, GM has devoted significant resources to the Chevy Volt. While the Volt holds promise, it is currently projected to be much more expensive than its gasoline-fueled peers and will likely need substantial reductions in manufacturing cost in order to become commercially viable • Even under the Company’s optimistic assumptions, the Company remains breakeven, at best, on a free cash flow basis throughout the projection period, thus failing the fundamental test of viability. o Under its own plan, GM generates $14.5bn of negative free cash flow over its 6 year forecast period. Even in 2014, on its own assumptions, GM generates negative free cash flow after servicing legacy obligations. o Given the highly challenging current market, the Company is already behind plan in its overall volume expectations and market share for calendar year 2009. o Since the Company has built a plan with little margin for error, even slight swings in its assumptions produce significant and ongoing negative cash flows. For example, a 1% share miss in overall global sales, all else being equal, in 2014 would lead to a $2 billion cash flow reduction in that year. somewhere i read the board of directors is also going to be replaced!!!!

amazing twist of fortunes. i did not expect this assessment to be this strict---good for obama,. this is what both chrysler and GM needed to hear: for GM: Market Share: GM has been losing market share to its competitors for decades, yet its plan assumes only a very moderate decline, despite reducing fleet sales and shuttering brands that represent 1.8% of its current market share. • Price: The plan assumes improvement in net price realization despite a severely distressed market, lingering consumer quality perceptions, and an increase in smaller vehicles (where the Company has previously struggled to maintain pricing power). • Brands/Dealers: The Company is currently burdened with underperforming brands, nameplates and an excess of dealers. The plan does not act aggressively enough to curb these problems. • Product mix: GM earns a large share of its profits from high-margin trucks and SUVs, which are vulnerable to a continuing shift in consumer preference to smaller vehicles. Additionally, while the Chevy Volt holds promise, it will likely be too expensive to be commercially successful in the short-term. • Legacy liabilities: In GM’s plan, its cash needs associated with legacy liabilities grow to unsustainable levels, reaching approximately $6 billion per year in 2013 and 2014. looks to me like the Obama team got the info they needed to get. DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB: • The plan contemplates that each of its restructuring initiatives will continue well into the future, in some cases until 2014, before they are complete. o The slow pace at which this turnaround is progressing undermines the Company’s ability to compete against large, highly capable and well-funded competitors. GM’s plan forecasts it to catch up to (and, in some cases, surpass) its competitors’ current performance metrics; however, its key competitors are constantly working to improve as well, potentially leaving GM further behind over time. • Given the slow pace of the turnaround, the assumptions in GM’s business plan are too optimistic. o Market Share GM has been losing market share slowly to its competitors for decades. In 1980, GM’s US market share was 45%; in 1990, GM’s US share was 36%, in 2000, its share was 29%. In 2008, its share was 22%. In short, GM has been losing 0.7% per year for the last 30 years. • Yet, in its forecast, GM assumes a much slower rate of decline, 0.3% per year until 2014, even though it is reducing fleet sales and shuttering brands which represent a loss of 1.8% market share, of which only a fraction will be retained. Management’s plan to achieve this is driven by a reduction in nameplates and an ensuing increase in marketing spend per nameplate. • Furthermore, in the current plan, GM has retained too many unprofitable nameplates that tarnish its brands, distract the focus of its management team, demand increasingly scarce marketing dollars and are a lingering drag on consumer perception, market share and margin.

Shall we walk the dogs and use the pooper scooper too? I favor GM as much as the next guy, but they gave up responsibility the day decades of inept decision making caught up with them and they came running to the gov't purse. by the way the majority elected obama, we gave him the right to make these calls, for better or worse. the time for turmoil officially ended when gm came running for money. they gave up independence, now the gov't gets to make the call.

it's a good move. image-based first and then we will see who can be produced to potentially make broad based systematic changes--alan mullaly can you give up your life to inherit both gm and ford operations?

april fools! haha, just kidding.

what's the problem? [shrugs shoulders] the cavalier coupe was one of the better designs in the '90's.....

i just spent like ten minutes staring at that drawing. it's really....quite...beautifully.....drawn. and you best bow down on your knees in trembling at the offensiveness of my display, dodgeboy.

LOOK AGAIN !

this'll get me a warning. there's some minimal connection to the humor already present in this thread. and of course a visceral connection.....................trust me i found this on a random search just now, not a hobbyism or anything....

we're alreadying propping them up and on the brink of announcing more money to them. should we teach them to ride thier bikes while we're at it? i love sushi too. tell them [GM] to make product as good as the best sushi and americans will start paying attention again.

totally disagree

you're disgusting. see now I've resorted to name calling and bickering.

you're right. should i cut GM slack for not reaching pole position first? it isn't necessarily defined as unique-bodied hybrids, moreso i would view it as hybrid alternatives in the mainstream family car market. that would exclude crossovers since the biggest segments of the mainstream market are sedans. by those retrictions there are plenty of alternatives already offered though none with the impact and volume of prius. you're asking me to relax my standards, but knowing what GM is capable of in terms of engineering it baffles me the expenditures and wasted resources. GMT 900 hybrids? come on. their great pieces of engineering. how many are they going to build? what's the restriction of the price level in order to get into one? what limits is GM themselves imposing on production capacity? GM needs a better PR unit. everyone is all hopped up on hybrid pills, so why didn't GM go ask for money a year ago to help them compensate for toyota's own government intervention in building the prius.

huh? you missed my point. i am anxiously awaiting volt, emphasize anxiously. GM is stupid for not entering this segment years ago with the dual mode, or even licensing the tech like ford and nissan did. or co-funding it with opel or whatever. and leapfrogs prius? what about after electric mode is done? won't it go to regular mileage figures? i'm not too informed on that aspect of the volt's tech. still you shouldn't summarily make a call like this unless we have both cars here to test and you can learn about both from sources outside the company.

true that. especially with a dated impala in the lineup. hopefully the pricing will find its way into the lower 30's before tax break, and subsequently 25-27 after taxes....

just being general

of course there can be new players, and of course they can find relevance. honda has been in this market before prius was, unfortunately they were as far from conventional as they ususally are and found no audience. now they have to play catch up with the prius reputation, which is deserved. prius has been around long enough, is a comfortable commuter car, lots of flexibility, decent quality, solid midline pricing, and the mileage is terrific. this generation only improves on every single one of those. just like toyota, methodical and meaningful, improvements. that being said, the point i was emphasizing was to lament the once great and biggest carmaker in the world STILL having nothing to compete in one of the most relevant and significant segments in the world, considering the times and where we're seeking to go as a community ecologically speaking.

when we have nothing more we can say we resort to name calling and intangibles

nobody cares about hulking suvs, at least the majority of the market. they were a big market for GM and not much of anybody else. but they produced plenty of profit. but they aren't a mainstream market, and besides why are we even mentioning them? there's no special engineering feats that take place in building a body on frame suv wagon. gm is too little too late as they often are in leading into new segments or even staking a claim in a new segment with a well crafted well engineering and well designed vehicle. i could spend my time pulling examples out of the history books, but i fear my time would be wasted, everyone knows the countless examples.

oh, so that's the one for the masses? it has nice styling? a comfortable luxurious interior? quality you can take pride in? the steering and suspension in all the models represent some modicum of driving enjoyment? are those the ones? cobalts sure are exciting and emotive cars/