GM Numbers: $6 billion, 621 and 0%

runeight

why ask why
Donating Member
Registered
Tax payer? 6 billion. UAW? Nothing. GM? Everything.

What a joke.

r8


By Brian Sullivan

Cheap and easy credit helped get the American economy into this mess, but apparently cheap and easy credit is going to get us out. At least that’s what General Motors is hoping, but the government-backed easy money may create more headaches than it cures.

Today the government agreed to give GM financing arm G.M.A.C an additional $6 billion dollars. It’s a move to help GM provide financing for consumer car purchases and comes on top of the $174 billion dollar loan provided to GM and Chrysler. The market likes this news and GM shares are on the rise, but will this meaningfully change the game for the company?

Tougher credit has been a part of the downward spiral of General Motors.

As the Journal article notes:

GMAC finances about 80% the wholesale purchases of GM’s cars by dealers world-wide. It has traditionally been the largest source of financing for the actual buyers of those vehicles once they reached the showroom. The car company said last month that a 45% sales skid for October was fueled by GMAC’s restricted lending, which cost GM anywhere from 45,000 to 60,000 sales in the month. About 25% of GM vehicle sales were financed through GMAC last month, down from more than 40% a year ago.

Credit is blamed for some of the pain, but it doesn’t mean that more easy credit will provide the solution either. There are some telling numbers that give a different view, one that mitigates some of the optimism around the GMAC announcement today. Let’s start with the size and scope of the numbers.

The $6 billion dollars GMAC received today certainly will not all go toward financing GM cars, but to make a point about what the money may mean let’s say that it does (and with GM’s announcement today that it is now offering 0% financing for up to 60 months on many cars the company is clearly covering more and more of the cost). $6 billion dollars used entirely for financing would pay for 200,000 vehicles selling at $30,000 each. While GM would love to sell an additional 200,000 cars and trucks, this is actually a fairly small number. Remember, even with November’s 41% drop in sales GM still sold 153,404 vehicles in the U.S that month. Clearly GM won’t finance 100% of the cost of a car, but even at lower percentages it is difficult to see how this additional $6 billion will meaningfully move the GM sales needle. $6 billion is real money, but for a company with hundreds of billions in revenue per year it is actually a drop in the financing bucket.

There are two other potential negatives here as well; more delinquent car loans and the continued destruction of the value of cars on the road by flooding the used car market.

With everyone fixated on home foreclosures few are looking at the auto-related problem: delinquent car loans and repossessions. According to lender Capital One Financial, nearly 10% of its car loans were late, with more than $100 million dollars being deemed uncollectable. Other articles note this trend is national, with more and more consumers unable to pay their car loans on time, if at all. Credit agency Experian notes that loans at least 60 days late have risen by 12.7% in November from last year’s same period.

Still, GM announced today that it will lower the required credit score of car buyers eligible for GMAC financing from 700 to 621. Credit scores, known as a FICO score, run from 850 down to about 350. 850 is considered perfect credit and anything below 620 is considered subprime. This is presumably how GM arrived at the 621 credit score figure for lending cut off. Credit has been available for people with credit score above 700 (about 55% of the population) but apparently those consumers haven’t been biting. So GM’s answer is to give credit - using government money - to the 25% or so of the population with credit scores just above subprime. (<-gotta love it)

Second, the car market is already saturated with cars for sale. Prices are weak as both new and used car dealers try to do what they can to move cars off the lot. Repossessed cars and cars coming off lease add even more inventory. Yet GM is doing its best to push new cars out the doors to borrowers who may end up becoming delinquent on the loan, sending more cars to auctions and onto used car dealers’ lots. This pushes prices down further, and the cycle begins again.

General Motors and its 6,000-plus car dealers need to sell cars to support an infrastructure built in large part on the 16 million cars sold as early as two years ago. They seem unwilling to accept the new reality that it may be difficult to sell 11 million cars in 2008, with Nissan predicting a similar sales figure for next year. Even if the lower credit score borrowers GM is tempting with taxpayer funded dollars buy a new car, the data from Capital One and other shows that about 1 in 10 are likely to pay that loan late or not at all.

We have too many foreclosed homes, we don’t need more repossessed cars in their driveways.
 
:whistle:

Big3bailoutAd.jpg
 
Then add this article.

r8

Reuters

SINGAPORE--Many investors said good riddance on Wednesday to one of the worst years on record and prayed that government rescue plans will pull the global economy out of its fierce tailspin later in the new year.

More pain is expected in the near-term as bleak economic reports roll in, flagging more bankruptcies, bad debts and layoffs through at least early 2009, and more sleepless nights for everyone from central bankers to consumers struggling to pay off mortgages and credit card bills.

The biggest financial crisis in 80 years, sparked by a U.S. mortgage meltdown, made this year one of the worst ever for investors as recession stalked the global economy. (<-thanks again Sen.Frank-D and Sen.Dodd-D)

"It has been a shocking year, hardly anything was spared in the market carnage," said Michael Heffernan, senior client adviser and strategist at Austock Group in Australia.

The slump wiped out nearly $14 trillion in market value, according to the benchmark MSCI world index of larger companies.

For all markets, the damage was probably much worse. The World Federation of Exchanges, which tracks stock markets in 53 developed and emerging economies, said some $30 trillion in market value evaporated through to the end of November.

The crisis also radically changed the financial landscape, bringing down U.S. investment banks Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, saddling many other banks with huge losses and freezing the credit system that keeps the world economy humming.

The U.S. S&P 500 benchmark has lost about 40% with just one trading day left in 2008. Its biggest yearly drop was in 1931 during the Great Depression, when it fell 47.1%

Victims of the crisis are still piling up, with announcements almost daily of fresh company losses, more layoffs, and slumping prices for assets from[cars to homes. (<-will sell you a car however)

Oil slid below $37 as economic slowdown bit into demand. Gold was one of the few commodities to end the year higher, gaining about 4 percent, as panicky investors grabbed assets seen as safer in times of trouble.

Tuesday brought news from the United States that single-family home prices were down 18 percent in the year to October and consumer confidence was at a record low.

On Wednesday, data showed Finnish industrial output down over 10% in the year to November, the biggest drop in 17 years.

HOPE

But with central banks cutting interest rates to spur growth and governments pumping money into the system, some investors see more positive signs for 2009.

"I think we'll move ahead a bit in the new year and then stabilize for a while. Global policymakers are doing their utmost to ensure the recession doesn't degenerate into a deflationary malaise," said Mike Lenhoff, chief strategist at Brewin Dolphin.

World governments have pumped more than $1 trillion into their economies, and more aid is expected in 2009 as leaders battle to stave off an even deeper recession.

China's central bank reaffirmed on Wednesday that it would implement a moderately loose monetary policy as it seeks to reinvigorate its once fast-growing economy.

Some economists forecast as little as 5% growth next year, which would be the country's lowest rate in nearly two decades. The Chinese central bank has cut interest rates five times since mid-September.

Indonesia's president promised further fiscal stimulus to help Southeast Asia's biggest economy withstand the slump. It is still growing but may not reach the 6 percent analysts say it needs to prevent unemployment from rising.

Global credit markets are showing some signs of improvement, but banks remain reluctant to lend to businesses and consumers, fearing a rash of bad loans as economies worsen.

Government stimulus plans, corporate bailouts and rate cuts also take time to be felt, and their full benefits are still being hotly debated by analysts and economists.

Mounting job losses are raising fears of social unrest in some countries, and piling pressure on governments to act quickly, even if it means huge deficits and debts that will have to be paid off somehow in the future.

Investors are now looking to January, when Barack Obama is sworn in as U.S. president on January 20. He is expected to unveil a government spending program which sources say could range from $675 billion to $775 billion over two years.

The new year will also mark attempts by policymakers to overhaul outdated regulatory systems to head off future crises and give them more power to oversee increasingly complex financial products.

Outgoing U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson said the U.S. government had to battle the financial crisis without the tools needed to do the job effectively, the Financial Times newspaper reported on Wednesday. (<- I'm going to puke)

"We're dealing with something that is really historic and we haven't had a playbook," he said. (<- great excuse bozo)
 
Last edited:
I thought Ford said it did not want the bail out..

I just dont see how throwing my money at the private automakes is going to fix anyhting. If I buy a car will a get a great deal beacuse a some of my money was used ot bail out the idiots?
 
Informative reads on both articles.

My own personal opinion is that "dumb America" that has bought into the "NEED" for the new things Commercialization has been telling us we NEED for some time now are finally realizing, maybe, just maybe, I don't NEED that new expense, I can make do with what I have already.

I'm not an expert in anything financial however I just CANNOT see a society sustaining a "throwaway" approach to life. When something is built so cheaply that it only lasts for a year or two before failure, and its cheaper to buy again than fix it, this can't be sustainable, yet its what consumerism is all about.

My grandparents had a Big Screen Projection TV for 35 years at their house, nice big wood frame, sturdy. It lasted THIRTY FIVE YEARS!!! But the new color tube it needed and the repair bill was about the same as a new Plasma that took up less room.

Fast foward 4 years and this TV is failing, color is burnt in and looks horrible, HITACHI or however you spell it, was supposed to be a good brand, but no one makes something to last, so that now you have to buy a NEW one, and they get the sale again.

What happens to the old one? Recycled? Not likely, most of it is probably junked somewhere. Also, if "money" is an exchange system we invented as humans to trade our "work effort" for goods, the work effort of whoever built this tv is also being thrown away too.

This example of things built cheap extends to virtually anything you can buy today, cars, disposable razors,, fast food (and all the throw away packaging), even houses. Visit a European country and look at the old stone houses in the major cities, they're still standing hundreds of years later, restored for modern living. Try to find a house built before 1950 that we don't just knock down and build start over, trashing the initial one.

I understand that its better for an industry to sell you a light bulb that burns out in 2 years than one that lasts for 100, but what is the end of this cyclical system? I think we go broke buying things we don't need, that don't work, and throw away all our resources over a very long run.

It seems to me that there MUST be some higher goal, that we as human people should be shooting for. We're blessed with the ability to REFLECT on our actions, something no other animal can do. Why don't we, as a collective people, demand something better from ourselves?

What are your thoughts?
 
Last edited:
...still does not help them sell cars........unless the discount them 40% now with their windfall of $$$
 
I still believe if the government have given the taxpayer back those billions of dollars the economy would have been better off.. after it is there money isn't it. people get their money back they pay their houses instead of loosing them pay their cars have money to go out and feed the local businesses seems like it had a better chance of fixing the problem than giving it to companies that are flushing it down the toilet on private planes an million dollar retirement packages.
 
Here is a diff perspective I found in my SPAM (below). I feel for our domestic producers, consider the fickle consumer... country is living on refi, economy in the toilet, & the consumers want the Denali with the TV in the dash. "mass customization" & all,,,, What, no Aluminum wheels.... ? Watch "Top Gear" sometime, Europe seemingly invests in six figure perfomance rides "BMW et al" probably 10 year payment books. We went from horses to carriages to model T to Eddie Bauer SUV's. Not just for transportation anymore... We should probably have a few hundred k black malibus scattered about with a card swipe in the dash. Leave it like a shopping cart. But then we need to fuel the consumer driven economy don't we? 225 slant 6 anyone?

see below:



Subject: Great letter by a U.S. Ford dealer!!





Attached is a well written "Letter to the Editor" from Elkins Fordland
.
Editor:

As I watch the coverage of the fate of the U.S. auto industry, one alarming and frustrating fact hits me right between the eyes. The fate of our nation's economic survival is in the hands of some congressmen who are completely out of touch and act without knowledge of an industry that affects almost every person in our nation. The same lack of knowledge is shared with many journalists whom are irresponsible when influencing the opinion of millions of viewers.
Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama has doomed the industry, calling it a dinosaur. No Mr. Shelby, you are the dinosaur, with ideas stuck in the '70s, '80s and '90s. You and the uninformed journalist and senators that hold onto myths that are not relevant in today's world.

When you say that the Big Three build vehicles nobody wants to buy, you must have overlooked that GM outsold Toyota by about 1.2 million vehicles in the U.S. and Ford outsold Honda by 850,000 and Nissan by 1.2 million in the U.S. GM was the world's No. 1 automaker beating Toyota by 3,000 units.
When you claim inferior quality comes from the Big Three, did you realize that Chevy makes the Malibu and Ford makes the Fusion that were both rated over the Camry and Accord by J.D. Power independent survey on initial quality? Did you bother to read the Consumer Report that rated Ford on par with good Japanese automakers.

Did you realize Big Three's gas guzzlers include the 33 mpg Malibu that beats the Accord. And for '09 Ford introduces the Hybrid Fusion whose 39 mpg is the best midsize, beating the Camry Hybrid. Ford's Focus beats the Corolla and Chevy's Cobalt beats the Civic.

When you ask how many times are we going to bail them out you must be referring to 1980. The only Big Three bailout was Chrysler, who paid back $1 billion, plus interest. GM and Ford have never received government aid.

When you criticize the Big Three for building so many pickups, surely you've noticed the attempts Toyota and Nissan have made spending billions to try to get a piece of that pie. Perhaps it bothers you that for 31 straight years Ford's F-Series has been the best selling vehicle. Ford and GM have dominated this market and when you see the new '09 F-150 you'll agree this won't change soon.

Did you realize that both GM and Ford offer more hybrid models than Nissan or Honda. Between 2005 and 2007, Ford alone has invested more than $22 billion in research and development of technologies such as Eco Boost, flex fuel, clean diesel, hybrids, plug in hybrids and hydrogen cars.
It's 2008 and the quality of the vehicles coming out of Detroit are once again the best in the world.

Perhaps Sen. Shelby isn't really that blind. Maybe he realizes the quality shift to American. Maybe it's the fact that his state of Alabama has given so much to land factories from Honda, Hyundai and Mercedes Benz that he is more concerned about their continued growth than he is about the people of our country. Sen. Shelby's disdain for "government subsidies" is very hypocritical. In the early '90s he was the driving force behind a $253 million incentive package to Mercedes. Plus, Alabama agreed to purchase 2,500 vehicles from Mercedes. While the bridge loan the Big Three is requesting will be paid back, Alabama 's $180,000-plus per job was pure incentive. Sen. Shelby, not only are you out of touch, you are a self-serving hypocrite, who is prepared to ruin our nation because of lack of knowledge and lack of due diligence in making your opinions and decisions.

After 9/11, the Detroit Three and Harley Davidson gave $40 million-plus emergency vehicles to the recovery efforts. What was given to the 9/11 relief effort by the Asian and European Auto Manufactures? $0 Nada. Zip!

We live in a world of free trade, world economy and we have not been able to produce products as cost efficiently. While the governments of other auto producing nations subsidize their automakers, our government may be ready to force its demise. While our automakers have paid union wages, benefits and legacy debt, our Asian competitors employ cheap labor. We are at an extreme disadvantage in production cost. Although many UAW concessions begin in 2010, many lawmakers think it's not enough.

Some point the blame to corporate management. I would like to speak of Ford Motor Co. The company has streamlined by reducing our workforce by 51,000 since 2005, closing 17 plants and cutting expenses. Product and future product is excellent and the company is focused on one Ford. This is a company poised for success. Ford product quality and corporate management have improved light years since the nightmare of Jacques Nasser. Thank you Alan Mulally and the best auto company management team in the business.

The financial collapse caused by the secondary mortgage fiasco and the greed of Wall Street has led to a $700 billion bailout of the industry that created the problem. AIG spent nearly $1 million on three company excursions to lavish resorts and hunting destinations. Paulson is saying no to $250 billion foreclosure relief and the whole thing is a mess. So when the Big Three ask for 4 percent of that of the $700 billion, $25 billion to save the country's largest industry, there is obviously oppositions. But does it make sense to reward the culprits of the problem with $700 billion unconditionally, and ignore the victims?

As a Ford dealer, I feel our portion of the $25 billion will never be touched and is not necessary. Ford currently has $29 billion of liquidity. However, the effect of a bankruptcy by GM will hurt the suppliers we all do business with. A Chapter 11 bankruptcy by any manufacture would cost retirees their health care and retirements. Chances are GM would recover from Chapter 11 with a better business plan with much less expense. So who foots the bill if GM or all three go Chapter 11? All that extra health care, unemployment, loss of tax base and some forgiven debt goes back to the taxpayer, us. With no chance of repayment, this would be much worse than a loan with the intent of repayment.

So while it is debatable whether a loan or Chapter 11 is better for the Big Three, a $25 billion loan is definitely better for the taxpayers and the economy of our country.

So I'll end where I began on the quality of the products of Detroit . Before you, Mr. or Ms. Journalist continue to misinform the American public and turn them against one of the great industries that helped build this nation, I must ask you one question. Before you, Mr. or Madam Congressman vote to end health care and retirement benefits for 1 million retirees, eliminate 2.5 million of our nation's jobs, lose the technology that will lead us in the future and create an economic disaster including hundreds of billions of tax dollars lost, I ask this question not in the rhetorical sense. I ask it in the sincere, literal way.

Can you tell me, have you driven a Ford lately?
Jim Jackson
Elkins
 
The ford letter was published a short time ago in a different thread. It frustrated me to read.

Great Ford, NOW you say you have a decent product. The PROBLEM vehicles, you know the ones you convinced the (stupid) public they needed to have, the Excursions, and similar Soccer mom battlefield tanks, are the things you've burned your customers with in the past.

What you (ford) fail to point out in this letter is that you have LOST brand loyalty by building an inferior and unnecessary product for the last decade at least.

FORD used to mean something, and it did for a long time, but once you rest on your own success to turn a quick buck, eventually people catch on.

The Japanese brands have caught up largely due to loyalty based on RELIABILITY, same as their bikes vs. Harley.

...Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me is it? It just might be that the public is starting to wake up.

It just might be too little too late, and the sad part is the big 3 are dragging down their employees and distributors with them. Detroit Auto Groups aren't entirely to blame, but they are by no means innocent.

I have not driven a Ford lately, and don't get me started on the "green" Prius.


:rant: (Slow day at work) :laugh:
 
went into a dodge dealership about 3 weeks ago, thinking maybe they
got some "extra" incentives going as times were tough and that not
only would chysler want to move a car so would the dealer...

I got like nothing, business as usual. I think they threw me like $300 or
$500 bucks off the sticker price. No thanks, keep your fricken car...

Did stop by the Yoda dealer, guy said last month they were rebating Tundra's
like 8-9000 dollars. Didn't want a tundra though...to bad. 10mpg doesn't
appeal to me.
 
went into a dodge dealership about 3 weeks ago, thinking maybe they
got some "extra" incentives going as times were tough and that not
only would chysler want to move a car so would the dealer...

I got like nothing, business as usual. I think they threw me like $300 or
$500 bucks off the sticker price. No thanks, keep your fricken car...

Did stop by the Yoda dealer, guy said last month they were rebating Tundra's
like 8-9000 dollars. Didn't want a tundra though...to bad. 10mpg doesn't
appeal to me.

Hard to believe huh? That much on the Tundra? WOW! I could of saved some money huh? I get 18.5 with mine. Still breaking it in however.

r8
 
Here's another perspective...had an engineer from our company in my
office a couple weeks ago. Been around the auto industry as an engineer
for most of his life, until a few years ago.

One job he worked for a periferal company that design and supplied parts
to the big 3. He recalls one meeting where reps from the car makers actually
stated...they will be shopping price price price and if your company does not
outsorce it's product (basically to cheap foregn labor) they will be priced out.
He said they are all hipocrates...buy american cars everyone, WE need the jobs
but tell the suppliers we want the cheapest, outsource your jobs.

He also pointed out as a nonunion member of "managment" (being an engineer)
He lost his insurance company benifit or rather the company paying for his
insurance and started paying his own way in 1991. 18 years of premiums
later the UAW screams about loosing benifits for a $60,000 a year employee.

Lastly he pointed out that just before he left you could walk down the hall
of the GM and it was like you were at the UN.
 
Last edited:
I guess what really hit me was the fact that the Big 3 could have done this long ago. I find it odd that as soon as the money hit the "special" deals appeared.

Does this remind you of "Loans to all" for a home?

Doesn't matter if you can afford the car or not. Will sell you one anyway.

Just crazy.

r8
 
I still believe if the government have given the taxpayer back those billions of dollars the economy would have been better off.. after it is there money isn't it. people get their money back they pay their houses instead of loosing them pay their cars have money to go out and feed the local businesses seems like it had a better chance of fixing the problem than giving it to companies that are flushing it down the toilet on private planes an million dollar retirement packages.

Yup, you and I work, pay are bills on time and the slackers get a free ride.

Ought to get real interesting after January 21 huh? You ain't seen the last of it.

r8
 
GM is fighting for it's life, and the consumer must show accountability. This sounds idealistic and it is, but that's today's business world. r8, you've said "shut the doors" many times and honestly I can't argue with that in black and white, but I don't believe that bankrupcy is an answer nor do I think that giving up on one of the U.S.'s great establishments is the right thing to do. I admit that my opinion is terribly flawed by bias :), but even if it wasn't, I'd have a very hard time with this.
 
Informative reads on both articles.

My own personal opinion is that "dumb America" that has bought into the "NEED" for the new things Commercialization has been telling us we NEED for some time now are finally realizing, maybe, just maybe, I don't NEED that new expense, I can make do with what I have already.

I'm not an expert in anything financial however I just CANNOT see a society sustaining a "throwaway" approach to life. When something is built so cheaply that it only lasts for a year or two before failure, and its cheaper to buy again than fix it, this can't be sustainable, yet its what consumerism is all about.

My grandparents had a Big Screen Projection TV for 35 years at their house, nice big wood frame, sturdy. It lasted THIRTY FIVE YEARS!!! But the new color tube it needed and the repair bill was about the same as a new Plasma that took up less room.

Fast foward 4 years and this TV is failing, color is burnt in and looks horrible, HITACHI or however you spell it, was supposed to be a good brand, but no one makes something to last, so that now you have to buy a NEW one, and they get the sale again.

What happens to the old one? Recycled? Not likely, most of it is probably junked somewhere. Also, if "money" is an exchange system we invented as humans to trade our "work effort" for goods, the work effort of whoever built this tv is also being thrown away too.

This example of things built cheap extends to virtually anything you can buy today, cars, disposable razors,, fast food (and all the throw away packaging), even houses. Visit a European country and look at the old stone houses in the major cities, they're still standing hundreds of years later, restored for modern living. Try to find a house built before 1950 that we don't just knock down and build start over, trashing the initial one.

I understand that its better for an industry to sell you a light bulb that burns out in 2 years than one that lasts for 100, but what is the end of this cyclical system? I think we go broke buying things we don't need, that don't work, and throw away all our resources over a very long run.

It seems to me that there MUST be some higher goal, that we as human people should be shooting for. We're blessed with the ability to REFLECT on our actions, something no other animal can do. Why don't we, as a collective people, demand something better from ourselves?

What are your thoughts?

too much truth here for many to stomach. :)

In summary:
"Contentment" is has more layers of value than known from a surface check.

You last paragraph should be the start of a new thread.
 
GM is fighting for it's life, and the consumer must show accountability. This sounds idealistic and it is, but that's today's business world. r8, you've said "shut the doors" many times and honestly I can't argue with that in black and white, but I don't believe that bankrupcy is an answer nor do I think that giving up on one of the U.S.'s great establishments is the right thing to do. I admit that my opinion is terribly flawed by bias :), but even if it wasn't, I'd have a very hard time with this.

I respect your thoughts.

r8
 
Back
Top