That's a bad bet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Printable View
That's a bad bet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Yeah, it will work just fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
X2Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
GM sells a car or truck in China every 12 seconds.
Bad bets...
Probably why I don't gamble much.
Are they really making a decent profit in China? High sales isn't automatically high profits.
Anything like this:
Holden owners post record profit
It does say "Soaring sales in China," but nothing tangible.
Of course, those cars are built in china by chinamen.
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
I have a hard time sometimes getting enough flowing heat to keep my windows clear on cold humid days with my sedan. I have no problem with my Z28, but my sedan's 4 banger isn't as good. Yesterday it snowed again.... Damn, snow all over the Northwest, after the Equinox. We set records. Great for skiing... Timberline lodge had 38" yesterday. Didn't want to drive the car with fat tires, and the sedans' defrosters were just barely adequate.
How well would the Volt do?
Great for their economy... What about ours?Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Well, they got to bring the money they made back to the US tax free and then give it out in bonuses to the UAW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American Please.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Also, to respond to WCs question, they are selling a shit ton of high margin buicks over there. It is apparently THE status car in China.
so .... good for the economy?Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
You pay back the U.S. tax pay by making money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sportcamper
The more money china makes, the more bonds they can buy from us so we can keep making social programs to "help"Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by Drachen
Are you saying we have USA Asian Americans working at the GM plant in Shanghai?
That's quite a distance to go for work.
It's a shitty deal for taxpayers, but it's the deal our government made and GM has honored their end of that agreement. GM has paid back all that they're obligated to and can spend their cash however they see fit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sportcamper
:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Drachen
They call themselves Asian American in China?
Sigh...
I took a shot and wasn't too confident of success so I knew it was a risk.
Its a bit of a cult classic among people around my age.
I don't think Cosmic saw our movie...Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-adyUGXgV1k...2BLebowski.jpg
General Motors pushing U.S. to sell stake: report
The Treasury Department is resisting General Motors' push for the government to sell off its stake in the auto maker, The Wall Street Journal reports. Following a $50 billion bailout in 2009, the U.S. taxpayers now own almost 27% of the company. But the newspaper said GM executives are now chafing at that, saying it hurts the company's reputation and its ability to attract top talent due to pay restrictions. Earlier this year, GM presented a plan to repurchase 200 million of the 500 million shares the U.S. holds with the balance being sold via a public offering. But officials at the Treasury Department were not interested as selling now would lead to a multibillion dollar loss for the government, the newspaper noted.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gen...ort-2012-09-17
If GM really wanted to restore their reputation they'd be offering to buy back the government's shares at a price that would allow the taxpayers to at least break even.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotes_geek
I would also note that the point that management said was that it is a bit hard to get the money, simply because the goverment ownership is becoming a drag, or so the management claims.
Sort of a self-fullfilling prophesy/vicious cycle. "we can't make money because of the reputational hit from being partly goverment owned, and the government won't sell its stake, because they don't want to take a financial hit"
A New York federal judge may rule imminently on a case that could reverse the General Motors (GM) bailout and send the company back into bankruptcy, according to sources close to the case.
At issue is a backroom deal hatched by GM to fulfill the Obama administration’s demand for a quick bankruptcy, draining the automaker of nearly all of its cash on hand and leaving it in worse shape than it was when it collapsed in 2009.
One condition of GM’s bailout was to shore up its overseas subsidiaries. On the eve of entering bankruptcy, the company cut a $367 million “lock-up agreement” with several major hedge funds to prevent GM Canada from failing. The agreement ensured that GM could spin-off its liabilities to “old GM,” while using a multi-billion dollar bailout to create a new company.
All of that could be reversed if bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber reopens the process and rules in favor of old GM trustees, who are suing the hedge funds at the center of the lockout agreement.
“In this particular situation, there’s $1.3 billion in liabilities, but that’s just what’s officially back on the table if the court rules for old GM,” said a bankruptcy expert close to the negotiations. “If those go back on the table then everything could be back on the table and [new GM] would have to address them.”
Those liabilities, which include old GM’s debt and product liabilities that pre-date bankruptcy, are valued at $30 billion, a sum that would wipe out the company’s $34.6 billion cash reserves.
Negotiators representing both sides of the case met in New York on Thursday to try to settle the suit through mediation rather than a court order.
“They’re feeling pretty good about it,” said an industry insider who spoke to one of the hedge fund negotiators on Thursday.
Gerber, the federal judge who initially approved the sale with little hesitation, now has the power to reverse the entire auto bailout. He has expressed deep frustration with the company for failing to disclose the deal, leading some to speculate that he may overturn one of President Barack Obama’s signature achievements.
“When I approved the sale agreement and entered the sale approval order I mistakenly thought that I was merely saving GM, the supply chain, and about a million jobs. It never once occurred to me, and nobody bothered to disclose, that amongst all of the assigned contracts was this lock-up agreement, if indeed it was assigned at all,” Gerber said in July.
“The judge has made it very clear that he is greatly dissatisfied with the process,” one analyst told the Washington Free Beacon in October. “He’s basically implying that GM hid it from him and that reopening the sale is a possibility.”
If Gerber takes that course the company could be forced to return the $30 billion taxpayer bailout that it received through the course of bankruptcy, on top of the new liabilities.
“It’s nice to see that GM is profitable again, but if all the liabilities come back to roost, short that stock,” the bankruptcy expert said.
A GM spokesman declined comment since the litigation is pending.
The Canadian and American governments played vital roles in the deal and pushed GM to negotiate as quickly as possible.
“Officials from the U.S. and Canada were very much involved—they were in the building when the deal was being negotiated,” an insider familiar with the deal said in October.
The Treasury Department, which oversaw the auto bailout, did not return emails for comment.
The company is taking the possibility of a negative ruling from Gerber very seriously. GM attorneys filed court documents saying that the lawsuit “could create a chaotic situation for GM Canada, spawn new litigation in other forums, and potentially provide a windfall to the noteholders.”
The bankruptcy expert said if the two sides cannot come to an agreement on Thursday, Gerber could preside over one of the most historic rulings in bankruptcy court history.
“This has tremendous implications for future of American business and bankruptcy precedent,” he said. “It means more than just GM—this is the rule of law and how creditors are treated in the United States legal system.”
http://jalopnik.com/5965170/how-will...-pickup-trucks
Not selling many trucks.
They are pricing themselves right out of the market. Shit, a new hard loaded truck is $55,000-$65,000. Fucking ridiculous.
That's why I bought a certified pre-owned one this time. Sweet ride for less than half the price. I have probably bought my last "new" vehicle.
what's the equivalent Ford or GMC truck cost?Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy