GM is doing AWESOME

[Truthseeker420]

GM Ramps Up Risky Subprime Auto Loans To Drive Sales; Taxpayers Still Own 26.5% - Investors.com


SUBPRIME loans......didnt we already go through this

Not sure, since the standard for credit has become almost impossible for many otherwise credit worthy folks. In any case, I think it's a good call for GM, since their sales have gone through the roof, and their new product line kicked Ford's ass. A couple of years back, I broke down on a trip, and picked up a cheap rental, while my car was being repaired. The Ford Focus is about the suckiest car I've ever driven.

I still am a bit pissed off at GM though, for dropping their Saturn line. Really well built cars.

Iw was the whole housing crises. The ones where banks were forced to loan to people who couldnt pay. Then when they did loan, liberals called them predatory...because their credit sucked, they jacked up the rates....no shit....so here we go again, in the auto industry!

Banks were never forced to loan money to people.

 

[Listening]

Thank you, hun. I do find that where ever I happen to be is much improved by my sparkling wit, discerning perception, and impeccable taste, even if I do say so myself.

You get my vote.

 

[boedicca]

Not sure, since the standard for credit has become almost impossible for many otherwise credit worthy folks. In any case, I think it's a good call for GM, since their sales have gone through the roof, and their new product line kicked Ford's ass. A couple of years back, I broke down on a trip, and picked up a cheap rental, while my car was being repaired. The Ford Focus is about the suckiest car I've ever driven.

I still am a bit pissed off at GM though, for dropping their Saturn line. Really well built cars.

Iw was the whole housing crises. The ones where banks were forced to loan to people who couldnt pay. Then when they did loan, liberals called them predatory...because their credit sucked, they jacked up the rates....no shit....so here we go again, in the auto industry!

Banks were never forced to loan money to people.

I suggest you read "Reckless Endangerment". There's a lot of blame to go around for the subprime crisis, but government definitely deserves it share. Among other things, banks were threatened with non-approval of charters for new branches if they didn't increase minority lending (i.e., provide subprime loans).

Read. It's good for you, and non-fattening.

 

[Nova78]

It wasn’t a government takeover; it was a bankruptcy reorganization. The General Motors (GM) Chapter 11 case was filed at the height of the economic recession; and there were no banks or other commercial lenders that could provide the DIP (Debtor in Possession) financing necessary to continue business operations during the reorganization proceedings; and without the government assistance (and that of Canada as well) GM would have been DOA (dead on arrival) on the first day, forcing the liquidation of the company, and loss of thousands of jobs as happened in the Circuit City bankruptcy that cost over 35,000 jobs. The liquidation of GM would in turn precipitate the failure of hundreds of related industry manufacturers and suppliers resulting in a flood of business bankruptcy cases across the country, and loss of millions of jobs. And, as it turned out, the reorganization was a success; witness the profitability of the company today.

If it was such a success, why do they need the subprime loans?

It is not a success , 79% of gm's inflated sales #'s last month were cars and trucks purchased by the Government, and the volt is a dismal failure, expect a downward trend in world markets , as gm sells many products in world markets.

 

[Nova78]

Its all horseshit

It looks like General Motors will be throwing everything in but the kitchen sink to help fluff its second quarter earnings numbers. Taxpayers continue to help with the cause as President Obama campaigns on the "success" of GM following the manipulated bankruptcy process that cost taxpayers $50 billion and another $45 billion of tax credits gifted to GM to help protect powerful UAW interests. We now learn that government purchases of GM vehicles rose a whopping 79% in June.

The discovery of the pick-up in government fleet purchases at the taxpayers' expense comes just weeks before GM announces its second quarter earnings. Overall fleet sales (which are typically less profitable than retail sales) at Government Motors rose a full 36% for the month, helping to drive decent sales improvements year over year.

GM claimed that sales increases did not rely on incentive spending, which appeared to remain in check, but one analyst during GM's sales conference call questioned whether the company's "stair step" incentive spending was accurately depicted. This incentive spending kicks in after dealerships report final sales figures for the month and may be yet another deceptive way for GM to fudge its numbers. Not mentioned was GM card rewards programs that do not get counted as incentive spending.

The government's increased spending on GM vehicle purchases presents yet another conflict of interest as Treasury refuses to sell taxpayers' stake in GM and Obama campaigns on the auto bailouts. It does not appear that any members of Congress (from either party) are questioning the increased spending. Also ignored was the Department of Energy's gifting of $2.7 million of taxpayer money to GM to reduce energy consumption in its door manufacturing process by 50%. The DOE seems to be one of the main conduits to funnel taxpayer funds to cronies of the Administration. The $2.7 million contribution to GM comes after additional millions of dollars were spent by the DOE on advisory fees paid to legal firms that helped smooth the way for the GM bankruptcy process (as reported here); another move that went unquestioned.

The upcoming earnings announcement by GM is, politically, the most important to date. The pressure is on Government Motors to appear financially strong as this may be the last earnings report before November elections and sets the stage for how "successful" GM is. One of GM's past tricks to help fudge earnings numbers has been to stuff truck inventory channels. Old habits die hard at GM. According to a Bloomberg report, "GM said inventory of its full-size pickups, which will be refreshed next year, climbed to 238,194 at the end of June, a 135 days supply, up from 116 days at the end of May." 135 days supply is huge, the accepted norm is a 60 day supply. The trick here is that GM records revenue when vehicles go into dealership inventories, not when actually sold to consumers.

The article goes on to quote Kelley Blue Book's Alec Gutierrez who stated "They're (GM) likely going to have a relatively high days supply of trucks moving forward and they're already placing some pretty aggressive cash incentives on the hood. It's going to eat into their profit margins..."

GM's earnings announcement comes on August 2nd. The main headwinds will be weak European operations and growing pension liabilities. The headline number for earnings should be viewed skeptically and an eye kept on the share price reaction after the conference call. Expect Government Motors to put a positive spin on its financial health as the stakes are now at their highest. The long-term health of GM remains in question and the true financial picture may not surface until well after voters decide who will be running our country. Eventually we will see just how successful GM really is.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Iw was the whole housing crises. The ones where banks were forced to loan to people who couldnt pay. Then when they did loan, liberals called them predatory...because their credit sucked, they jacked up the rates....no shit....so here we go again, in the auto industry!

Banks were never forced to loan money to people.

I suggest you read "Reckless Endangerment". There's a lot of blame to go around for the subprime crisis, but government definitely deserves it share. Among other things, banks were threatened with non-approval of charters for new branches if they didn't increase minority lending (i.e., provide subprime loans).

Read. It's good for you, and non-fattening.

Yeah because the Bush Administration was so pro minority and banks are powerless.

 

[Listening]

Banks were never forced to loan money to people.

I suggest you read "Reckless Endangerment". There's a lot of blame to go around for the subprime crisis, but government definitely deserves it share. Among other things, banks were threatened with non-approval of charters for new branches if they didn't increase minority lending (i.e., provide subprime loans).

Read. It's good for you, and non-fattening.

Yeah because the Bush Administration was so pro minority and banks are powerless.

Did anyone just hear a toilet flush ?

 

[Truthseeker420]

I suggest you read "Reckless Endangerment". There's a lot of blame to go around for the subprime crisis, but government definitely deserves it share. Among other things, banks were threatened with non-approval of charters for new branches if they didn't increase minority lending (i.e., provide subprime loans).

Read. It's good for you, and non-fattening.

Yeah because the Bush Administration was so pro minority and banks are powerless.

Did anyone just hear a toilet flush ?

what?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Not sure, since the standard for credit has become almost impossible for many otherwise credit worthy folks. In any case, I think it's a good call for GM, since their sales have gone through the roof, and their new product line kicked Ford's ass. A couple of years back, I broke down on a trip, and picked up a cheap rental, while my car was being repaired. The Ford Focus is about the suckiest car I've ever driven.

I still am a bit pissed off at GM though, for dropping their Saturn line. Really well built cars.

Iw was the whole housing crises. The ones where banks were forced to loan to people who couldnt pay. Then when they did loan, liberals called them predatory...because their credit sucked, they jacked up the rates....no shit....so here we go again, in the auto industry!

Banks were never forced to loan money to people.

Predatory loans were SUBPRIME loans.....where they jacked up the rates because they had to loan to people who couldnt pay (hint...Cuomo called it affirmative action housing)
No who pushed the subprime loans? you think banks wanted to loan to people they knew couldnt pay? Cuomo when he passed the regulations, KNEW they couldnt pay
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TWOPDN5Va0]1998: Sec. Andrew Cuomo Defends Affirmative Action Mortgage Policy - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Dick Tuck]

Iw was the whole housing crises. The ones where banks were forced to loan to people who couldnt pay. Then when they did loan, liberals called them predatory...because their credit sucked, they jacked up the rates....no shit....so here we go again, in the auto industry!

Banks were never forced to loan money to people.

I suggest you read "Reckless Endangerment". There's a lot of blame to go around for the subprime crisis, but government definitely deserves it share. Among other things, banks were threatened with non-approval of charters for new branches if they didn't increase minority lending (i.e., provide subprime loans).

Read. It's good for you, and non-fattening.

I see you're on the "lets blame blacks" bandwagon. Too bad the facts don't bear this out. 56% of the 2.5 million foreclosures between 2007 through 2009 were mortgages to non-hispanic whites. Your logic is also bullshit. Telling banks that they have to increase lending to minorities does not automatically equate to "subprime". It was the result of banks not providing equal treatment to minorities. CRA originated loans actually perform better than average, and only accounted for 6% of subprime lending.

It was Wall Street that pushed subprime lending, believing that they could bundle the mortgages with subprime mortgages, and still reduce risk. Wall Street's problem was they let their greed blind them to the fact that home prices were skyrocketing, and forming a clear bubble. Were minorities hit harder when the bubbles burst? Yep. But that's beside the point. To support this, 83% of the foreclosures between 2007-2009 were originated after 2004.

Source: http://www.responsiblelending.org/m...alysis/foreclosures-by-race-and-ethnicity.pdf

 

[Political Junky]

The taxpayers are not out any money. The GM reorganization, which was one of the biggest bankruptcy cases in our history, was a huge success. Alternatively, letting GM fail would have been a catastrophic loss with consequential damage to the economy, and at the worst possible time. It was just not an option.

that sound alot like trickle down

So, you're not convinced that "trickle down" works?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Banks were never forced to loan money to people.

I suggest you read "Reckless Endangerment". There's a lot of blame to go around for the subprime crisis, but government definitely deserves it share. Among other things, banks were threatened with non-approval of charters for new branches if they didn't increase minority lending (i.e., provide subprime loans).

Read. It's good for you, and non-fattening.

I see you're on the "lets blame blacks" bandwagon. Too bad the facts don't bear this out. 56% of the 2.5 million foreclosures between 2007 through 2009 were mortgages to non-hispanic whites. Your logic is also bullshit. Telling banks that they have to increase lending to minorities does not automatically equate to "subprime". It was the result of banks not providing equal treatment to minorities. CRA originated loans actually perform better than average, and only accounted for 6% of subprime lending.

It was Wall Street that pushed subprime lending, believing that they could bundle the mortgages with subprime mortgages, and still reduce risk. Wall Street's problem was they let their greed blind them to the fact that home prices were skyrocketing, and forming a clear bubble. Were minorities hit harder when the bubbles burst? Yep. But that's beside the point. To support this, 83% of the foreclosures between 2007-2009 were originated after 2004.

Source: http://www.responsiblelending.org/m...alysis/foreclosures-by-race-and-ethnicity.pdf

So they thought there was risk.....hence they higher rates....and trust me they didnt want to do it...the main reason blacks had issues, is their credit sucks,, black people admit their credit sucks....it's not exactally a secret, so we had to LOWER the bar....and it backfired....OOOPS
No I think it is the point.

And so you do admit they wanted to increase black ownership (affimative action) NOW WHY did Cuomo say that they know some loans will not be paid?????

Now as for the whites, there are lots more whites than others, so yes they would get more loans

The problem was they lent money to people who couldnt pay (that includes whites, BUT the law was made so blacks could get more house owenership, so the credit threshold went down, and people couldnt pay their mortgages, and BOOOM it collapsed.)

 

[buckeye45_73]

The taxpayers are not out any money. The GM reorganization, which was one of the biggest bankruptcy cases in our history, was a huge success. Alternatively, letting GM fail would have been a catastrophic loss with consequential damage to the economy, and at the worst possible time. It was just not an option.

that sound alot like trickle down

So, you're not convinced that "trickle down" works?

Yeah it does, I just like liberals admitting it finally And the reason is what he said, because business is not in a vaccum. Liberals think everything is zero sum and in vaccums. Just raise taxes on the rich....NO..because Bill Gates will make Windows and Office even higher......see how that works?

 

[Dick Tuck]

Iw was the whole housing crises. The ones where banks were forced to loan to people who couldnt pay. Then when they did loan, liberals called them predatory...because their credit sucked, they jacked up the rates....no shit....so here we go again, in the auto industry!

Banks were never forced to loan money to people.

Predatory loans were SUBPRIME loans.....where they jacked up the rates because they had to loan to people who couldnt pay (hint...Cuomo called it affirmative action housing)
No who pushed the subprime loans? you think banks wanted to loan to people they knew couldnt pay? Cuomo when he passed the regulations, KNEW they couldnt pay
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TWOPDN5Va0]1998: Sec. Andrew Cuomo Defends Affirmative Action Mortgage Policy - YouTube[/ame]

Lie. Predatory loans were broker initiated loans, with crazy teaser rate, which wasn't covered by CRA, were a much greater cause. The lending industry claims that CRA loans actually perform better than conventional loans. Only 6% of subprime loans are done under CRA. Why is it important for you to use lies, to blame black people, when the facts show you're full of shit?

 

[Dick Tuck]

I suggest you read "Reckless Endangerment". There's a lot of blame to go around for the subprime crisis, but government definitely deserves it share. Among other things, banks were threatened with non-approval of charters for new branches if they didn't increase minority lending (i.e., provide subprime loans).

Read. It's good for you, and non-fattening.

I see you're on the "lets blame blacks" bandwagon. Too bad the facts don't bear this out. 56% of the 2.5 million foreclosures between 2007 through 2009 were mortgages to non-hispanic whites. Your logic is also bullshit. Telling banks that they have to increase lending to minorities does not automatically equate to "subprime". It was the result of banks not providing equal treatment to minorities. CRA originated loans actually perform better than average, and only accounted for 6% of subprime lending.

It was Wall Street that pushed subprime lending, believing that they could bundle the mortgages with subprime mortgages, and still reduce risk. Wall Street's problem was they let their greed blind them to the fact that home prices were skyrocketing, and forming a clear bubble. Were minorities hit harder when the bubbles burst? Yep. But that's beside the point. To support this, 83% of the foreclosures between 2007-2009 were originated after 2004.

Source: http://www.responsiblelending.org/m...alysis/foreclosures-by-race-and-ethnicity.pdf

So they thought there was risk.....hence they higher rates....and trust me they didnt want to do it...the main reason blacks had issues, is their credit sucks,, black people admit their credit sucks....it's not exactally a secret, so we had to LOWER the bar....and it backfired....OOOPS
No I think it is the point.

And so you do admit they wanted to increase black ownership (affimative action) NOW WHY did Cuomo say that they know some loans will not be paid?????

Now as for the whites, there are lots more whites than others, so yes they would get more loans

The problem was they lent money to people who couldnt pay (that includes whites, BUT the law was made so blacks could get more house owenership, so the credit threshold went down, and people couldnt pay their mortgages, and BOOOM it collapsed.)

What a ******* liar you are. You didn't even read the industry analysis that I provided you. One more time. Only 6% of subprime loans are covered under CRA. CRA originated loans perform better than average. What part of that don't you understand? I'm sorry if the facts get into way of your racist propaganda.

 

[Charles_Main]

GM is alive. Bin Laden is dead.

Our 'Conservatives' are unhappy with both outcomes.

BS on Both Counts.

Don't think I have ever heard a single person say they are not glad Obama got Osama.

And thinking the way the Bond Holders got fucked, and that the Bail out only Bought GM time, not salvation is not the same as being unhappy GM is Alive.

You fail so miserably.

lol

 

[Charles_Main]

Banks were never forced to loan money to people.

So what do you call it when you threaten them with Criminal and Civil Charges if they Refuse to loan Money to People they feel can't afford if if those people happen to be Minorities?

 

[francoHFW]

If you think the Volt is a dismal failure, you're a brainwashed tick on Rush's BS azz...

 

[Charles_Main]

If you think the Volt is a dismal failure, you're a brainwashed tick on Rush's BS azz...

Really? Have you seen the sales figures? Do you know how much the Government has to pay for each one that is sold?

How the **** do you idiots measure Success?

 

[Dick Tuck]

Banks were never forced to loan money to people.

So what do you call it when you threaten them with Criminal and Civil Charges if they Refuse to loan Money to People they feel can't afford if if those people happen to be Minorities?

CRA loans perform better than conventional loans. Only 6% of CRA mortgage loans are subprime, and most of those are for refinancing or home improvement.