34
   

Let GM go Bankrupt

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2011 07:27 am
@parados,
So.. let me put this another way hawk

GM lost money and under tax law can write that off against profits.
Old GM is never expected to make enough profit to write off those losses.
New GM is expected to make enough to write off some of those losses, but probably not all of them due to the time limit on them.

Owners of NEW GM will benefit from the ability to write off those losses. Without the ability to write off those losses the company would have to pay taxes which reduces shareholder value. ($100 for the company vs $50 for company and $50 in taxes.)
Bondholders are owners of about 25% of GM if they exercise their warrants.
Bondholders benefit from the ability of NEW GM to write off previous losses.

So.. you are whining that bondholders aren't getting enough money while arguing they should get less by forcing GM to forgo the write offs of previous losses.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 12:25 am
Quote:
Taxpayers will lose about $14 billion in the government's $80 billion bailout of Chrysler and GM, the White House said Wednesday, portraying the outcome as good news since the losses are far lower than originally anticipated.
Seizing on the figures, the Obama administration took credit for the resurgence of the U.S. auto industry, assuring taxpayers that the government's bailout of Chrysler and GM was an investment worth making.
A report by the president's National Economic Council noted that as Detroit automakers rebound, the taxpayers' loss from the bailout will be about $14 billion, or less than 20 percent of the $80 billion that the Bush and Obama administration used to prop up the companies in 2008. The Treasury Department had expected losses closer to 60 percent.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43242226/ns/business-autos/

This does not include the $17 billion that we put into GMAC, of which we are expected to lose $6.3 billion at last count, but which seems hopelessly optimistic as they (now called Ally) are spending a lot more for their capital than are the banks, thanks to Fed efforts to prop up the banks. Given that the business model does not work we should lose most of that $17 billion, last time I looked not a cent of it had been paid back.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 12:33 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Some bonds are secured; some are not. These were.

Oh, back up your own claim first.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 07:14 am
How many of the cars sold in the US are bought by institutions?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 07:35 am
@hawkeye10,

US government owns 74% of Ally which was valued at about $13.8 billion in Dec of last year. A prospectus for an initial public offering was sent out March 31, 2011.

Ally is currently profitable.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/03/us-ally-idUSTRE7427LX20110503
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 08:45 am
@roger,
roger wrote:

Some bonds are secured; some are not. These were.

Oh, back up your own claim first.


In 2009, GM only had 6 billion owed to secured bondholders, and 27 billion owed to unsecured bondholders. The vast majority of their debts to bondholders were not in fact secured. So, your statement above is inaccurate at best.

The argument that the secured bondholders somehow got the shaft relies upon the totally false premise that GM and Chrysler's assets were worth what the bondholders claimed they were. I see no reason to believe that - in the midst of a financial crisis focusing around improper valuation of assets and the lack of liquidity that realization created - this was true at all. I would point out to you that the bankruptcy judge apparently agreed with my opinion and that of the Obama admin on this one.

Not only that, but GM bondholders who got 35 cents on the dollar in 2009 did FAR better than bondholders in other corporate bankruptcy cases that year, who averaged 25 cents or so.

This is from an article about Chrysler, but it's essentially the same thing:

Quote:
The price of distressed debt is dependent on what traders believe they'll be able to recover—i.e., how much the company will be worth after it legally sheds certain debts in bankruptcy. Debt holders can recover in two ways. Companies can reorganize, transfer ownership to the debt holders, continue as going concerns, and emerge from bankruptcy. The recovery comes down the road when the former creditors sell their equity. Or companies can liquidate—wipe out their debt, sell off property and other assets, and distribute proceeds to the creditors. In the case of Chrysler, either path to recovery would require a significant influx of taxpayer money. Companies in bankruptcy require new debt—known as debtor-in-possession in financing—so they can keep the lights on. That market is not functioning particularly well since (irony alert!) so many banks are themselves in danger of bankruptcy. And so, in the case of Chrysler, the taxpayers are providing up to $4.6 billion in such financing.

Liquidation is an option, of course. Instead of fixing up the house, you could sell it in its current state to the first available buyer or break it down and sell the plumbing and fixtures. But even a liquidation of Chrysler would require further taxpayer intervention. Given the precipitous decline in auto sales for the global auto industry, the market for industrial production capacity for cars in the United States isn't exactly robust. Assuming a buyer didn't materialize immediately, Chrysler would have to keep operating to maintain any viability. If Jeep suddenly stopped making cars and advertising, the value of the brand for sale would decline rapidly. You can make the case that if the government didn't intervene at all, a bankruptcy would have happened sooner rather than later, and that, if the government didn't intervene again by providing more financing, it would have required a swift liquidation at the worst possible time.

Finally, secured debt holders' argument that they're getting the shaft relies on their belief that the true value of the bank debt is worth more than what the government was offering. But in this cycle, investors have frequently overestimated the amount of recovery they could get by taking possession of distressed assets. Think about the banks that foreclosed on a borrower and figured they'd be able to recoup 70 percent of the mortgage's value by selling the home—only to find that when they dumped the house onto a market already glutted with thousands of other foreclosed properties at a time when financing wasn't available, the best offer amounted to only 30 percent of the mortgage's value. That's also what is happening in the world of corporate debt. Ed Altman, the sage of high-yield debt at New York University, estimates that so far in 2009, the recovery rate has been 25 percent (25 cents on the dollar), compared with 42 cents on the dollar in 2008 (about the historical average) and 56 cents in 2007. It turns out that the Detroit executives weren't the only ones counting on a taxpayer-funded bailout.


http://www.slate.com/id/2217653/

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 05:04 pm
http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2011/07/nissan-leaf-outsells-chevy-volt-in.html
"The battle for supremacy in the electric car category has begun –even though at present there are only two prime contestants. According to Bloomberg, the Nissan LEAF sold 3,875 cars the first half of the year, compared to 2,745 of GM’s Volt over the same period.
From January through May, the Volt was only 17 cars behind the Leaf, but in the following month, sales of the Volt plunged to just 561 cars, while those of the LEAF took off with a record 1,708 units, giving Nissan’s EV the lead."
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 05:22 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2011/07/nissan-leaf-outsells-chevy-volt-in.html
"The battle for supremacy in the electric car category has begun –even though at present there are only two prime contestants. According to Bloomberg, the Nissan LEAF sold 3,875 cars the first half of the year, compared to 2,745 of GM’s Volt over the same period.
From January through May, the Volt was only 17 cars behind the Leaf, but in the following month, sales of the Volt plunged to just 561 cars, while those of the LEAF took off with a record 1,708 units, giving Nissan’s EV the lead."

This is GM, that their latest alleged wiz bang product is shunned by consumers should come as no shock, though this is the car that was supposed to save the company and make the taxpayer tackover of the company a good deal for taxpayers, so this failure of GM is more significant than normal.
hawkeye10
 
  3  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 05:26 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Well hello there, Nissan Leaf. My, how you've grown. I hear your 2012 model is getting some significant updates.Let's explore, shall we?

To address the weather concerns associated with electric vehicles, a new "cold weather package" will come standard with the 2012 Leaf. This kit includes: battery heater, heated outside mirrors, heated steering wheel, heated front seats (front and rear) and a standard quick-charge port.

But an even bigger change is lined up for 2013 as well. Katherine Zachary, Nissan's senior manager of corporate communications, confirmed that the Leaf's on-board charger will double its current 3.3-kilowatt rating to 6.6 kW, allowing it to charge twice as fast as the current model. That could bringing charging time down from 8 hours on a 240 volt outlet, to just four hours or less.

As my father always says, "never buy the first-generation model of a new technology." That's because infant tech typically has the dubious distinction of being both overpriced and underwhelming. The Leaf was no exception to this rule, as this significant hiccup demonstrates.

Ah, but what a few years can do for fledgling young technology. It remains to be seen whether the price comes down for 2012-those figures will be out soon-but the car seems to be filling out nicely. Nissan's EV should be hitting that sweet spot of technological maturity and affordability within a few years
http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/20110715/2012-nissan-leaf-doubles-charging-capacity-cold-weather-package.htm

Has GM made a significant improvement to the Volt yet? I have not been paying attention, but I would be shocked if they have, as the development of the Volt has shown that the old GM habit of being slow in development and being very inefficient with their capital spending did not change when they become government motors.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 06:50 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
This is GM, that their latest alleged wiz bang product is shunned by consumers should come as no shock, though this is the car that was supposed to save the company and make the taxpayer tackover of the company a good deal for taxpayers, so this failure of GM is more significant than normal.
I have not followed the auto industry that close, but based upon a brief search and the link posted below, it does not appear that the numbers of volts sold by government motors are on a scale to save the corporation the size of GM. For example, Ford truck F150 sales appear to continue to lead the pack in sales, with 264,079 units sold so far in 2011. It would appear to me that sales success would be reflected in hundreds of thousands of units instead of a paltry 2 or 3 thousand, especially given the amount of money spent to develop the volt. Anyway, I will be interested to see how all of this turns out. I agree with you, hawkeye, that it is usually better to wait until a new technology kind of works out the bugs before buying into it.
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 07:43 pm
@okie,
Quote:
based upon a brief search and the link posted below, it does not appear that the numbers of volts sold by government motors are on a scale to save the corporation the size of GM
Last I heard GM was losing $7,000 a copy, so the best news would be zero sales.

Quote:
GM built zero Chevrolet Volts in June, but don’t worry, the stoppage was planned, says company spokesman Robert Peterson.

Detroit-Hamtramck Assembly, where the Volt is built, is currently undergoing upgrades for the model-year changeover, which adds new features to the Volt at a reduced price. Volt production will begin again in mid-July, Peterson says.The stoppage means the Volt will have extremely limited availability until August. Currently there are about 200 units available nationwide, he says.

http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2011/07/chevy-volt-supply-to-be-extremely-limited-this-summer.html

Quote:
GM is adding new workers as it increases Volt production. The automaker raised its intended Volt production last week, to 16,000 for 2011 and 60,000 for 2012. Executives have discussed building as many as 120,000 Volts a year if demand increases with rising gas prices

http://www.freep.com/article/20110526/BUSINESS01/105260471/General-Motors-Detroit-Hamtramck-plant-run-3-shifts-1st-time-26-year-history

Quote:
The Chevy Volt will be more widely available starting in August, and GM plans on producing 16,000 Volts by the end of 2011, with 3,500 expected to head overseas.
http://www.egmcartech.com/2011/07/16/chevrolet-volt-will-be-a-little-tough-to-find-this-summer/
In addition over 2000 cars of the 2011 are show cars for dealers as Volt sales go nationwide, and these cars not intended to be sold anytime soon so the actual 2011 US sales figure will at best come in at 9500.

For comparison Toyoda has sold north of 140,000 Prius in the US since 06
http://www.hybridcars.com/news/toyota-prius-sets-1-million-sales-green-car-benchmark-29731.html

I suspect that GM is lying about the reason for the shutdown, as they are adding another car the the facility and they are putting in a massive solar array for power. They are retooling the plant, but only a small part of the work is to upgrade the Volt line.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2011 12:52 pm
http://detnews.com/article/20110715/AUTO01/107150449/1409/rss36

Quote:
General Motors Co. is expected to announce Monday it will invest about $300 million to build a new full-size truck at its Flint Assembly plant, according to sources familiar with the plans.

The investment will create or retain hundreds of jobs, the sources said.
GM spokeswoman Kim Carpenter declined to comment other than to say: "We have some exciting news and we look forward to sharing it on Monday," when company and union executives have scheduled a morning news conference in Flint.


If GM had failed, this sure as hell wouldn't be happening.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  0  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2011 04:25 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
And if the electric vehicle was the the silver bullet for GM, it wouldn't be happening either, cyclops.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2011 04:28 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

And if the electric vehicle was the the silver bullet for GM, it wouldn't be happening either, cyclops.


Silver bullets KILL things, like werewolves. So, I'm not sure your metaphor was a good one.

You're right tho - the Volt isn't the solution to every problem, or GM's savior. Good thing nobody proposed that it was.

I rode in a Nissan Leaf the other day, it was a fine automobile, lovely, rode well and was roomy and comfortable. All electric.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  0  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2011 04:52 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You're right tho - the Volt isn't the solution to every problem, or GM's savior. Good thing nobody proposed that it was.

I rode in a Nissan Leaf the other day, it was a fine automobile, lovely, rode well and was roomy and comfortable. All electric.
Cycloptichorn
I think the press implied that the volt was a symbol of the wonderful green movement and superior engineering that Government Motors / Obama were going to give us. You can bet if sales figures were much stronger, we would have seen more adulation in the press for the genius of Obama with GM.

Your experrience with the Leaf does not surprise me, because I believe that ultimamately it will be the private auto companies like Nissan, Toyota, Ford, and others that will be giving us the best technology and most successful cars in the future. I don't believe it will be a government driven company like GM. We've already seen an example of that with the Toyota Prius showing us the way in the development of hybrid vehicles.

The fact remains, cyclops, that the internal combustion engine powered by hydrocarbons remains a hugely competitive and viable technology, and I believe further advancement can still be made in that arena as well. It is yet to be proven that batteries are more efficient and economical, when all of the side issues are factored in, such as price and availability of raw materials to manufacture, as well as disposal, replacement, trade in value, safety, and so forth.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2011 04:55 pm
@okie,
I don't believe you will ever be satisfied with the electric engine, Okie. Despite the fact that they are tremendously more efficient than IC engines.

Primarily because us Lib's like 'em. Isn't that what a lot of your resistance boils down to, in the end?

Re: the Volt, GM envisioned, designed, and began to produce the first versions of this car before the government gave them any loan whatsoever. So, to say that they are a 'government driven' company, and that's what led to the Volt, is foolish.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  0  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2011 05:21 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Primarily because us Lib's like 'em. Isn't that what a lot of your resistance boils down to, in the end?Cycloptichorn
My resistance boils down to the fact that I seldom if ever buy into a relatively new technology immediately. I wait to see how it all shakes out in terms of viaility, price, best design, and so forth, and that philosophy has served me well throughout my professional career and personal business career. I could use many analogies, but even in science, such as the practice of geology, some theories and technologies, even some prospect areas, may initially be trendy, but often it is the companies that come in after the initial period of activity that end up more successful and profitable.

One specific example that comes to mind is the computer. At first came the main rames, and with the company I worked for, they invested big money into them, with a staff of people wearing white lab coats, etc. Those people tried to convince the geologists and engineers of all the wonders those computers could do for them, but mostly they became a company joke. But as is the case with management, they always want to appear to be "with it," up to date, and progressive, so hence much money was spent frivolously. It was much later when the personal computer became commonplace in each individual's office that found out what could be accomplished when the machine was placed under the control of the people that knew what they needed it to do for them. Before that, the old saying "garbage in garbage out," was proven over and over.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 03:26 pm
Quote:
U.S. taxpayers likely lost $1.3 billion in the government bailout of Chrysler, the Treasury Department announced Thursday.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/21/autos/chrysler_government_exit/index.htm?cnn=yes&hpt=hp_t2

I am pretty sure that like with GM the bailout of the financing arm of Chrysler is tracked seprately, and comes in much more expensive. IN other news Fiat now controls Chrysler. Dont expect it to be around for long, as fiat has already indicated that they are considering folding the company they got for a song into Fiat.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 07:50 pm
@hawkeye10,

Yep. U.S. Government Ends Chrysler Investment With $1.3 Billion Loss

Obamanomics - change we can't afford

0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 08:18 pm
Hmm, $1.3 billion? That's about what 5 days, less than a week, of the war in Iraq cost us. On the whole, rather than spending it on an elective war, I'd say spend it on stopping a death spiral chain of business failures causing other busniess failures, until the whole economy tanks. Obama stopped that spiral by among other things making sure Chrysler kept its employees working and pumping up the economy. It was cheap at the price xand no Americas were killed in the spending of it, and it worked. Grade: Obama: A-, Nay-sayers: F.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Let GM go Bankrupt
  3. » Page 57
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 12:24:27