General Motors Is Headed For Bankruptcy -- Again

[thanatos144]

Ford motors stock has fallen by the same proportions.

so? What does that have to do with anything?

Bailing out GM was a temporary fix and cost us billions strictly for political gain of Obama. Only a fool did not know that the US auto industry could not compete with the world industy overall.

Except for the FACT Bush began the auto bailout. And he would do it again...WHY? I will let Bush explain it to you:


Bush Defends Auto Bailouts Amid Growing Political Debate: 'I'd Do It Again'

February 7, 2012 4:36 PM EST

Former U.S. President George W. Bush defended the emergency bailout funds his administration provided to General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC in a speech to car dealers, saying he would "do it again."

(Photo: Reuters)
President George W. Bush defended his administration's
2008 auto bailouts on Monday, saying they were
necessary to prevent a depression.


"I didn't want there to be 21 percent unemployment," Bush said Monday in the closing speech at National Automobile Dealers Association convention in Las Vegas, according to Bloomberg. "I didn't want to gamble. I didn't want history to look back and say, 'Bush could have done something but chose not to do it.' And so I said, 'No depression.'"

Related Articles

GM Looks for $10 Billion-Plus Profits: Can the Automaker Continue its Dramatic Recovery?
Chrysler Adds 1,800 Jobs for Dodge Dart Production

Bush isnt president anymore .

 

[Bfgrn]

so? What does that have to do with anything?

Bailing out GM was a temporary fix and cost us billions strictly for political gain of Obama. Only a fool did not know that the US auto industry could not compete with the world industy overall.

Except for the FACT Bush began the auto bailout. And he would do it again...WHY? I will let Bush explain it to you:


Bush Defends Auto Bailouts Amid Growing Political Debate: 'I'd Do It Again'

February 7, 2012 4:36 PM EST

Former U.S. President George W. Bush defended the emergency bailout funds his administration provided to General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC in a speech to car dealers, saying he would "do it again."

(Photo: Reuters)
President George W. Bush defended his administration's
2008 auto bailouts on Monday, saying they were
necessary to prevent a depression.


"I didn't want there to be 21 percent unemployment," Bush said Monday in the closing speech at National Automobile Dealers Association convention in Las Vegas, according to Bloomberg. "I didn't want to gamble. I didn't want history to look back and say, 'Bush could have done something but chose not to do it.' And so I said, 'No depression.'"

Related Articles

GM Looks for $10 Billion-Plus Profits: Can the Automaker Continue its Dramatic Recovery?
Chrysler Adds 1,800 Jobs for Dodge Dart Production

Bush isnt president anymore .

Irrelevant. Try to pay attention.

 

[thanatos144]

Except for the FACT Bush began the auto bailout. And he would do it again...WHY? I will let Bush explain it to you:


Bush Defends Auto Bailouts Amid Growing Political Debate: 'I'd Do It Again'

February 7, 2012 4:36 PM EST

Former U.S. President George W. Bush defended the emergency bailout funds his administration provided to General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC in a speech to car dealers, saying he would "do it again."

(Photo: Reuters)
President George W. Bush defended his administration's
2008 auto bailouts on Monday, saying they were
necessary to prevent a depression.


"I didn't want there to be 21 percent unemployment," Bush said Monday in the closing speech at National Automobile Dealers Association convention in Las Vegas, according to Bloomberg. "I didn't want to gamble. I didn't want history to look back and say, 'Bush could have done something but chose not to do it.' And so I said, 'No depression.'"

Related Articles

GM Looks for $10 Billion-Plus Profits: Can the Automaker Continue its Dramatic Recovery?
Chrysler Adds 1,800 Jobs for Dodge Dart Production

Bush isnt president anymore .

Irrelevant. Try to pay attention.

That is the only relevant thing to say about your whining cry fest.....Time for you to stop blaming others for your Messiah's failures.

 

[kaz]

I skimmed the article. It's pretty dumb. An article claiming GM is going to go bankrupt but doesn't say anything about its debt obligations nor its cash flow is difficult to take seriously. It's great that the author tells us what the wheelbase is but what are the covenants that will trigger bankruptcy? He may not know the difference between a bond liability and bond glue.

Seriously? You're clearly right that it doesn't go into their financial statements and prove they are on the verge of filing. Actually he said he sees no reason for anything imminent to happen. But it's a pretty good analysis of their market situation. And his position is completely reasonably stated, with shrinking market share, particularly in certain segments, without improvement eventually their fixed costs are going to become unsustainable. In an MBA corporate strategy class that observation would be considered pretty sound. You don't get that? An MBA corporate strategy class would not conclude it's definitive either without further analysis. Neither did he.

 

[paulitician]

Translation: The American Taxpayers got hosed again.

To Hell with Corporate Welfare.

 

[Toro]

I skimmed the article. It's pretty dumb. An article claiming GM is going to go bankrupt but doesn't say anything about its debt obligations nor its cash flow is difficult to take seriously. It's great that the author tells us what the wheelbase is but what are the covenants that will trigger bankruptcy? He may not know the difference between a bond liability and bond glue.

Seriously? You're clearly right that it doesn't go into their financial statements and prove they are on the verge of filing. Actually he said he sees no reason for anything imminent to happen. But it's a pretty good analysis of their market situation. And his position is completely reasonably stated, with shrinking market share, particularly in certain segments, without improvement eventually their fixed costs are going to become unsustainable. In an MBA corporate strategy class that observation would be considered pretty sound. You don't get that? An MBA corporate strategy class would not conclude it's definitive either without further analysis. Neither did he.

The article said that GM is going bankrupt within the next four years. At what market share does GM file? 15%? 10%? 5%? He doesn't answer the question. He just assumes that because they are losing share, they are going to file. Just because a company is losing market share does not mean they are going to file. The company has $4 billion in debt and declining, $50 billion in other liabilities, $40 billion in equity, $15 billion in working capital and threw off $3 billion free cash flow over the last 12 months. At some point, continuing deterioration will lead to bankruptcy, but without looking at a single number or bond covenant, saying that it will lead to bankruptcy "in Obama's next term" - what about Romney's first term? - it's hard to take seriously.

 

[kaz]

I skimmed the article. It's pretty dumb. An article claiming GM is going to go bankrupt but doesn't say anything about its debt obligations nor its cash flow is difficult to take seriously. It's great that the author tells us what the wheelbase is but what are the covenants that will trigger bankruptcy? He may not know the difference between a bond liability and bond glue.

Seriously? You're clearly right that it doesn't go into their financial statements and prove they are on the verge of filing. Actually he said he sees no reason for anything imminent to happen. But it's a pretty good analysis of their market situation. And his position is completely reasonably stated, with shrinking market share, particularly in certain segments, without improvement eventually their fixed costs are going to become unsustainable. In an MBA corporate strategy class that observation would be considered pretty sound. You don't get that? An MBA corporate strategy class would not conclude it's definitive either without further analysis. Neither did he.

The article said that GM is going bankrupt within the next four years. At what market share does GM file? 15%? 10%? 5%? He doesn't answer the question. He just assumes that because they are losing share, they are going to file. Just because a company is losing market share does not mean they are going to file.

Reasonable question, but I think you have to add to that he does argue that if things remain the same. He does bring up that they need to reverse the slide or cut costs. GM and the auto industry is pretty well known. With declining market share it's not that hard to project who long it would likely take for them to be unable to pay their bills. I have to agree he didn't justify his specific number though.

The company has $4 billion in debt and declining, $50 billion in other liabilities, $40 billion in equity, $15 billion in working capital and threw off $3 billion free cash flow over the last 12 months. At some point, continuing deterioration will lead to bankruptcy, but without looking at a single number or bond covenant, saying that it will lead to bankruptcy "in Obama's next term" - what about Romney's first term? - it's hard to take seriously.

I think the best argument his choice of "four years" is that it is a Presidential term, which does make one wonder if that term was politically selected. But on the other hand, the article didn't dwell on that projection and focused on the market dynamic and that GM doesn't seem to be adjusting and that something has to change eventually or they will ultimately file. Which you are agreeing with as well.

You have a point on the specific, four year projection though.

 

[daveman]

Glad to see you support GM, how many shares do you currently have of GM? What new GM vehicles have you purchased since 2009?

Jonesy is one of those "Do as I say, not as I do" liberals.

Show me a liberal who isn't DM... It's exactly why they say "socialism is for the people, not the socialist". They expect everyone else to share and sacrifice, but they "deserve" to live better. It's the most repulsive form of hypocrisy.

Indeed. The proles need someone to do their thinking for them, and liberals insist the job is theirs.

 

[there4eyeM]

"To Hell with Corporate Welfare."

That must be where we are, then.

 

[there4eyeM]

" The proles need someone to do their thinking for them, and liberals insist the job is theirs."

You want the job?

 

[WillowTree]

so, if they go bankrupt do the liberals intend to bail them out again at taxpayer expense? yes? or no?

 

[paulitician]

Time to close the book on Corporate Welfare. The Taxpayers have been used & abused enough.

 

[Bfgrn]

Bush isnt president anymore .

Irrelevant. Try to pay attention.

That is the only relevant thing to say about your whining cry fest.....Time for you to stop blaming others for your Messiah's failures.

It is time for an adult to step in. You are emoting on what is totally irrelevant.

Let's examine Jarhead's accusation:

Bailing out GM was a temporary fix and cost us billions strictly for political gain of Obama.

NEITHER president bailed out GM for political gain. They BOTH did it because it was the right thing to do for the nation.

Bush even went on to say THIS:

Bush told about 22,000 dealers at the conference that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke urged him to take action late in his presidency to avoid the serious repercussions that could have come quickly. Bush wanted to stick to the free-market philosophies he championed.

"But sometimes circumstances get in the way of philosophy," Bush said, according to the paper. "I would make the same decision again."

 

[there4eyeM]

"The Taxpayers have been used & abused enough."

Yes, by both the traitorous 'major parties'.

Vote other!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I skimmed the article. It's pretty dumb. An article claiming GM is going to go bankrupt but doesn't say anything about its debt obligations nor its cash flow is difficult to take seriously. It's great that the author tells us what the wheelbase is but what are the covenants that will trigger bankruptcy? He may not know the difference between a bond liability and bond glue.

Seriously? You're clearly right that it doesn't go into their financial statements and prove they are on the verge of filing. Actually he said he sees no reason for anything imminent to happen. But it's a pretty good analysis of their market situation. And his position is completely reasonably stated, with shrinking market share, particularly in certain segments, without improvement eventually their fixed costs are going to become unsustainable. In an MBA corporate strategy class that observation would be considered pretty sound. You don't get that? An MBA corporate strategy class would not conclude it's definitive either without further analysis. Neither did he.

Pretty much.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I skimmed the article. It's pretty dumb. An article claiming GM is going to go bankrupt but doesn't say anything about its debt obligations nor its cash flow is difficult to take seriously. It's great that the author tells us what the wheelbase is but what are the covenants that will trigger bankruptcy? He may not know the difference between a bond liability and bond glue.

Seriously? You're clearly right that it doesn't go into their financial statements and prove they are on the verge of filing. Actually he said he sees no reason for anything imminent to happen. But it's a pretty good analysis of their market situation. And his position is completely reasonably stated, with shrinking market share, particularly in certain segments, without improvement eventually their fixed costs are going to become unsustainable. In an MBA corporate strategy class that observation would be considered pretty sound. You don't get that? An MBA corporate strategy class would not conclude it's definitive either without further analysis. Neither did he.

The article said that GM is going bankrupt within the next four years. At what market share does GM file? 15%? 10%? 5%? He doesn't answer the question. He just assumes that because they are losing share, they are going to file. Just because a company is losing market share does not mean they are going to file. The company has $4 billion in debt and declining, $50 billion in other liabilities, $40 billion in equity, $15 billion in working capital and threw off $3 billion free cash flow over the last 12 months. At some point, continuing deterioration will lead to bankruptcy, but without looking at a single number or bond covenant, saying that it will lead to bankruptcy "in Obama's next term" - what about Romney's first term? - it's hard to take seriously.

The problem that I see which you failed to add to the equation, the tax payer has yet to be paid back, and the government still has controlling shares in GM which they weren't supposed to be at this point.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

so, if they go bankrupt do the liberals intend to bail them out again at taxpayer expense? yes? or no?

Got to save those union pension plans. They are to big to fail.

 

[kaz]

Time to close the book on Corporate Welfare. The Taxpayers have been used & abused enough.

Absolutely. Corporate Welfare is a variation of socialism, not free markets. Giving failed companies taxpayer money harms companies that were efficient and didn't drive themselves into the ground purely harming them and consumers. Successful companies and consumers pay twice.

Efficient companies worked to cut cost, then are taxed for it and their money given to less efficient competitors, who can lower their price artificially and then they have to compete with companies funded by their own money.

Consumers pay the taxes, then pay higher prices because the efficient companies were harmed and have to pay for the money that is being confiscated from them to fund their competitors.

It's a government cluster, government is screwing us all.

 

[there4eyeM]

Your Congress, over many years and many administrations, at 'work', but for whom?

 

[kaz]

Your Congress, over many years and many administrations, at 'work', but for whom?

Themselves