General Motors has fallen once again on the Fortune 500 list of America's top-grossers. The General had once stood strong atop the rankings, having fallen from the top spot in 2001 at which time Wal-Mart took over. For the last few years, Exxon-Mobil and the big box retailer have battled for the first two positions on the list with GM claiming third place. This year, soaring demands for energy have allowed Chevron to nudge past GM on its way to a third place finish. General Motors, at number four on the list, is bracketed by another energy company, ConocoPhillips, at number five. Ford finds itself sitting at number seven, the same as last year.Fortune's 500 list is based on company revenue, not profit. If profit were the main criteria, GM and Ford wouldn't be making any appearances on the list at all. Exxon Mobil would easily claim the top spot as the most profitable company around with GM posting nearly as much in losses over the same period of time.
[Source: Fortune]
New KITT Attack Mode revealed at Comic Con
London 2008: Honda OSM concept roadster says, "Cheerio!"
London 2008: Lotus unveils the Evora
2010 Chevy Camaro - Official Details and Images
2010 Chevy Camaro - LIVE from the reveal
In the Autoblog Garage: Aprilia RSV 1000 R
First Drive: Maserati Quattroporte S in Europe
First Drive: 2008 MINI Cooper S JCW
In the Autoblog Garage:2009 Nissan GT-R
North American Exclusive First Drive: Alfa MiTo
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
TyWright @ Apr 22nd 2008 6:10PM
And soon they'll be OFF the F500 if they don't start making cool reliable cars.
The Camaro and the 1-ton ain't gonna save em people!
Andrew @ Apr 22nd 2008 6:25PM
No joke. The Malibu will keep them in the game...for a year. They're going downhill quick.
smartmlp @ Apr 22nd 2008 7:18PM
If you are suggesting the Malibu should be redesigned every year, that would drive them into bankruptcy long before falling sales would. As far as cool cars, last I checked they are far from the most boring. The problem they have is brand perception. The Malibu is a great car that equals or bests every car in its category not just in features but in price as well. It is a great deal to be had when a fully loaded V6 Camry will cost you into the 30 grand area.
TriShield @ Apr 22nd 2008 6:18PM
They should be much lower on the list, their current position doesn't reflect the reality of the company's situation. TTAC has an excellent op-ed about this published today.
Thedevil @ Apr 22nd 2008 6:41PM
Come on fellas,GM has turned the ship,you just wait till next year!hold on,that sounds familiar,did'nt we hear that in 2006 and last year?
Aprime @ Apr 22nd 2008 7:32PM
Stop being such a lousy troll.
Thedevil @ Apr 22nd 2008 7:53PM
Dude! why are you attacking me?i always thought autoblog did'nt stand for this,maybe i was wrong,can you please make a comment about the topic and stop attacking me?thanks
Tony @ Apr 22nd 2008 8:00PM
I am always a bit cynical when companies proclaim loudly that they are losing money.
Here's an example. If I build a car for $10,000.00 this includes all R&D advertising costs etc, etc. I then advertize this car for sale for $30,000.00. Nobody pays $30,000.00 for the car so I end up putting incentives of $5000.00 on the vehicle, and rebates to the dealer. Finally somebody comes in and buys the car for $20,000.00. Did I make a profit of $10,000.00 or a loss of $10,000.00, since I didn't sell it for $30,000.00?
The old adage of a cup half full or half empty. If you want to negotiate a better deal from your employees (union) you'd pick the half empty one, wouldn't you.
Judy Zik @ Apr 22nd 2008 9:53PM
The Car companies would be over the moon if they could sell for 20 grand a vehicle that only cost 10 grand in materials, R&D and overhead. No main line manufacturer see's margins anywhere near that.
What really happens is that they are spending a certain amount to build it and hoping to amortize the cost of R&D and advertising by figuring on another set amount per vehicle if they sell a certain amount per month. But then they only sell half of what they expected so you still have the same overhead but you have to amortize those costs over half as many cars which means your margins disappear. Then add in the fact that you had to discount the cars to sell the few you did and when you run the numbers they are actually losing money per unit quite often. This is how all of the big three ended up in the red. It is real money going down the tube.
Disgruntled Goat @ Apr 22nd 2008 9:39PM
With the consolidations in the oil and gas industry and the ever increasing price of gas, the top will be dominated by these energy companies for the foreseeable future. Many people that used to pay $300/month for gasoline don't seem to have a problem paying $600 today. From the nonstop parade of solo piloted Suburbans, idling for minutes at a time in various drive thru lanes and cruising down the highway at 80mph it's obvious no one really cares how much they're spending on gas so I don't see why this will change any time soon.
Disgruntled Goat @ Apr 22nd 2008 9:59PM
It's also funny how ExxonMobil makes as much profit as the rest of the top 9 combined. They have almost 4 times the profit margin of Walmart.
I wonder what the true cost of a gallon of gas would be if you counted the cost of the Iraq oil war and the impact of pollution into the actual price?
Ted Kennedy Is My Chauffer @ Apr 22nd 2008 11:58PM
I find it interesting that Proctor & Gamble, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America all have a higher profit margin than ExxonMobil (14, 13 and 13% respectively, vs 11%), while Berkshire Hathaway, IBM, and Wachovia have the same profit margin and yet no one is calling for them to cap their prices or to be penalized with a windfall profits tax.
Scorch @ Apr 23rd 2008 12:10AM
That's because the government doesn't understand economies of scale. They see the $40 billion dollar profit without taking into account the fact that ExxonMobil spent about $450 billion on its operations. The fact is they are a huge company with huge profits but their profit margin is not abnormally high. I really don't see why no one seems to understand this.