GM repays government loan...

JaredPointer

JaredPointer

COME AT ME BRO
...with another chunk of government bailout money.

FOXNews.com - Grassley Slams GM, Administration Over Loans Repaid With Bailout Money

They were even conscientious enough to send me an Email to let me know how much I can rest assured that they're a wonderful, profitable company.

Dear Jared,

We are proud to announce we have repaid our government loan – in full, with interest, five years ahead of the original schedule. We realize we still have more to do. Our goal is to exceed every expectation you've set for us. We're designing, building and selling the best cars and trucks in the world. Like the award-winning Chevy Malibu, the all-new Buick LaCrosse, the versatile Cadillac CTS Sport Wagon and the innovative GMC Terrain, just to name a few. We invite you to learn more about the new GM and join our community, by visiting gm.com.


Susan E. Docherty
Vice President, U.S. Marketing

Are they even trying? Smoke and mirrors.....

This definitely doesn't regain any trust I previously had in them.
 
Interesting how we don't hear too much about this or the Ford recall, yet every little screw up by Toyota gets front page headlines.
 
termigator said:
Interesting how we don't hear too much about this or the Ford recall, yet every little screw up by Toyota gets front page headlines.
Click to expand...

Yep. Very. I wouldn't have known had I not gotten that sweet, personal Email and decided to do some researching on my own. I was wondering just how it was possible to repay a loan (a whole 5 years in advance of schedule and with interest too! Golly Gee!) when you just lost 4 billion over the last six months. Now I know.
 
Ronkh said:
Borrowing from Peter, to pay Peter.
Screw Paul........
Click to expand...

Let's get one thing straight here, folks: GM got two separate pots of money from the Government. One, they were required to pay back. The other, the Government never really intended that it would see again.

If GM management decided that it would be in their best interest to eliminate the debt obligation they held by investing some of the funds they weren't expected to repay, I say more power to them. It's a perfectly valid approach to reforming their business practices, which they have been doing quite a bit lately in addition to launching vastly improved, class leading vehicles.

Like it or not, GM and Ford both are managing to surpass their competitors on product right now, and slowly but surely sales are beginning to reflect this change as more new products hit dealer lots. Chrysler are the ones we should really be concerned about.
 
Regardless of where they got the money,at least the taxpayers got back 8.1 bilion. Now we need to help GM like we helped Chrysler in the 80s,and get the government OUT of the private sector.
 
Shiny Lil Detlr said:
Let's get one thing straight here, folks: GM got two separate pots of money from the Government. One, they were required to pay back. The other, the Government never really intended that it would see again.

If GM management decided that it would be in their best interest to eliminate the debt obligation they held by investing some of the funds they weren't expected to repay, I say more power to them. It's a perfectly valid approach to reforming their business practices, which they have been doing quite a bit lately in addition to launching vastly improved, class leading vehicles.

Like it or not, GM and Ford both are managing to surpass their competitors on product right now, and slowly but surely sales are beginning to reflect this change as more new products hit dealer lots. Chrysler are the ones we should really be concerned about.
Click to expand...

So, in other words, when Bob Lutz claimed that the difference between them and the folks at Wall Street was that they received a loan and not a "bailout", he was actually exaggerating (some would say outright lying) because they did receive a "bailout" along with a loan.

To say GM and Ford are surpassing their competitors on product is a stretch. They might have pulled even on a few products but they still have a way to go before they are competitive on all fronts
 
Shiny Lil Detlr said:
It's a perfectly valid approach to reforming their business practices, which they have been doing quite a bit lately in addition to launching vastly improved, class leading vehicles.
Click to expand...

Being rewarded (by being able to stay in the industry at an unfair advantage to their competitors) by the government for inferior vehicles and overall business practices is not a very valid form of business. Who is going to keep GM afloat the next time they start begging for a handout?

While I might agree they have made some improvements in their vehicle lineup, it appears that it's the same old business as usual at GM - losing gobs of money. And did the taxpayers really get their money back? Whatever pot you want to call it that they repaid the "save us" loan with, it was still footed by the American taxpayer. Pulling it from one pocket to put in another didn't really do anything. It just moved the figure around on a financial statement.

And to top it all off, they act like they really did something by "paying off" this loan. I'm glad they've got some people persuaded. I admit, I am a bit biased against them (and Chrysler) for taking handout money, but anyone with a finance background can see where this is just shuffling around the numbers. Until GM can turn a profit and stand on their own, they've been given an unfair advantage over their other competitors (except Chrysler). I guess we can all wait and see if they are going to be profitable in 2010 as their analysts say they are going to be. I'm not holding my breath.
 
I do not like corporate bailouts but I know why they made the decision they did.

I guess the republicans did not like the democratic proposal to creating a group that basically funds a bailout fund...sorta like corporate insurance..paid for by the larger banks.

I am sure some would have preferred we end up in a depression for 10 yrs to prove that the government should not get involved...so what little savings people had is mostly lost due to the failed banks. I mean we should prove the point by destroying the country.
 
I completely fail to understand the attitude of "save us government so the economy doesn't fail and we won't have a depression."

I won't go into a long diatribe about why everything that goes into that line of thinking is completely against capitalism and what made the United States strong in the first place. I'll just say that it was thinking like that that got us into a mess to begin with.

Reliance on the government to "bail you out" does not increase long term growth, long term strategic planning, long term profitability, corporate innovativeness, etc. Let's keep things okay in the short term at the expense of the long term. We don't need to learn how to make better things at lower costs using innovative technology and techniques. We've got the government to bail us out!
 
***Disclaimer***My elbow is going to be a little sore from patting myself on the back. There was another thread regarding this and I might just have called this. I won't quote myself. If you want you can check out my post (#2) in that thread. :D

IMO Whitacre and GM lied to the American public. GM did not payback the American taxpayer. It will be interesting to see how and if the FTC decides to apply the truth in advertising law.

Speaking of advertising, GM has dismissed the ad agency it has used since 1919. This is the agency that promoted the Chevy brand with memorable campaigns like Dinah Shore singing See the USA in your Chevrolet, and Bob Seeger's Like a Rock and the Heartbeat of America. They are replacing them with an advertising group based in... France. ;)

Let's not forget this $6.7 billion is only a small portion of the $52+ billion we have entrusted with GM.
 
Mr. Clean said:
***Disclaimer***My elbow is going to be a little sore from patting myself on the back. There was another thread regarding this and I might just have called this. I won't quote myself. If you want you can check out my post (#2) in that thread. :D

IMO Whitacre and GM lied to the American public. GM did not payback the American taxpayer. It will be interesting to see how and if the FTC decides to apply the truth in advertising law.

Speaking of advertising, GM has dismissed the ad agency it has used since 1919. This is the agency that promoted the Chevy brand with memorable campaigns like Dinah Shore singing See the USA in your Chevrolet, and Bob Seeger's Like a Rock and the Heartbeat of America. They are replacing them with an advertising group based in... France. ;)

Let's not forget this $6.7 billion is only a small portion of the $52+ billion we have entrusted with GM.
Click to expand...

There's not enough rep points in the world, my friend. :bigups
 
JaredPointer said:
I completely fail to understand the attitude of "save us government so the economy doesn't fail and we won't have a depression."
Click to expand...

Apparently, you fail to understand the auto industry and how the economy works, then.

If GM had been simply allowed to fail and had their assets liquidated, there would have been a major snowball effect which would without a doubt have caused a significantly worse recession/depression than we're currently experiencing. This is because as soon as GM's corporate and engineering departments were closed, along with all their manufacturing facilities, they would be followed into death by many parts suppliers, dealerships, shipping firms, and many other entities who are directly reliant on the auto industry to stay in business.

Following this massive spike in unemployment, several other small and medium sized businesses like stores, restaurants, and other non-essential service providers (think about it guys, do you really think people would still get their cars detailed professionally if they can barely afford to eat?) would be forced to close as people would no longer have the money to spend.

Are you seeing the pattern here?

So you may be sitting there thinking GM going out of business would be no big deal, but you're WAY off the mark on that belief. Sure, the situation could probably have been dealt with in a different way, but it would have been irresponsible for the government to simply ignore the problem when a corporation as large and complex as GM that is so integral to the nation's economy is in trouble.

As for your comment about short term vs. long term, I'll quote economist John Maynard Keynes: "After all, in the long run, we'll all be dead."

GM can't pull a complete 180 overnight, so you can't possibly expect them to become perfect in the course of 6 months' time, but they're actively improving and will continue to do so over the short and medium run.

BTW, anyone noticed that the foreign car companies are actually DECLINING in quality while GM and Ford are IMPROVING? Seems there's a change in the tides going on here....:idea
 
Nope - I completely understand how it would ripple. I understand the consequences of GM closing it's doors. You seem to think that no one else would step in to take their place, which is incorrect. You think that GM can't be replaced, which is incorrect. The auto industry works no different than any other business model. GM isn't some kind of superpower company that's propping up the American economy on it's own. GM leaving the marketplace would be painful for a short time, until another player stepped up to replace them. You're of the mindset that artificially propping GM up is a good thing - all it's doing is keeping the barrier to entry high for the next small carmaker to come in and compete (most likely with fresh, new ideas). Possibly even a company formed with the "best of the best" that's currently at GM.

And exactly what are you basing your opinion on foreign automakers quality going downhill? From what I see, people like Hyundai are actually making leaps and bounds in the quality department. Smaller foreign automakers are actually making huge strides in quality and are opening up plants all over the US (and so are the associated suppliers you think would vanish if GM left the market) while GM is closing doors to manufacturing facilities and dealerships nationwide. You're dead wrong on the assumption that foreign automakers are declining in quality.

And I don't expect GM to get it right overnight. But heck, they've had what, a hundred years? Just to show that they were incompetent at keeping up with an expanding global/international economy? Again, I ask - how many times do we have to keep footing the bill for their poor choices? One, three, forever? Just for the sake of keeping them around?
 
Shiny Lil Detlr said:
BTW, anyone noticed that the foreign car companies are actually DECLINING in quality while GM and Ford are IMPROVING? Seems there's a change in the tides going on here....:idea
Click to expand...

I think Toyota would be the only foreign car company right now with DECLINING quality if at all. Throw out the recalls (which all car companies are victims of from time to time. Ford is in the midst of one right now) and Toyota quality is still stellar. Other companies like Hyundai and Honda have either improved their quality or have held steady (i.e. excellent overall for Honda)
Ford has definitely picked up the pace and are running neck and neck with the Asian vehicles. GM has improved a LITTLE, but overall, they're still lagging behind. As far as the tides changing, I'll believe it when Chrysler can actually build something, anything, that can be even be remotely considered to be decent in quality.
 
I am a GM supporter for I have owned one for a lot of years. So I may be a little biased.

I am glad that GM paid back billions of dollars early. But they certainly are not paid in full and it makes me mad as a supporter of GM that they would try to double talk themselves into this situation which amounts to me to be a situation of.."Don't pee on my leg and tell me that it is raining outside."

I pay early on a lot of things.

But I don't delude myself with thinking I am pad in full. That is ludicrous!
 
termigator said:
Toyota quality is still stellar.
Click to expand...

Enjoy driving your casket, then. I fail to see the stellar quality.

GM has improved a LITTLE, but overall, they're still lagging behind.
Click to expand...

Examples, please? And by that, I mean examples of their new products and the products they're preparing for release. Not products that are remnants of the old GM that are now being phased out.
 
Shiny Lil Detlr said:
Neither do I... but the plain and simple fact is that we're never going to be paid in full. Might as well accept it and move on.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the same attitude people had that got the domestic auto companies in trouble to begin with? Just accept shoddy quality and move on? I think that's a very poor way of looking at it. If we all thought that way, how long do you think it will be before they go back to "business as usual" and start taking the American consumer for granted again? How long before they start patting themselves on the back again and be satisfied with their efforts?
 
Shiny Lil Detlr said:
Enjoy driving your casket, then. I fail to see the stellar quality.

Examples, please? And by that, I mean examples of their new products and the products they're preparing for release. Not products that are remnants of the old GM that are now being phased out.
Click to expand...

Actually, I drive a Lexus IS350 and I'm not so dumb as to put a floor mat right on top of another because I read the manual and it said DON'T DO IT!

I could quote Consumer Reports (Malibu, good reliability. CTS, poor reliability. Honda, every single car had good or excellent reliability. Do we really need to talk about Chrysler?), but you (and Black Bart) have already dismissed them as biased.

I also subscribe to Motor Trend and Car & Driver (yes, two more ultra biased publications). Read enough of them and you'll notice that the domestics (with the exception of Ford, recently. I like the Fusion, BTW) consistently score the lowest in driving dynamics, engine refinement and fit & finish.

I would like to add that the Buick Lacrosse (Which I also like) did beat out the Lexus ES350 in Motor Trend's latest. However, how big can a victory by if you're new vehicles barely beats out a car that had been around for about three years?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top