http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/ Autoblog Comments for GM posts $3.25 billion loss in Q1 http://www.autoblog.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.autoblog.com en-us Copyright 2008 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/Apr 30th 2008 10:38AMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/
Also, Ford, smartly, has been selling of marques which aren't a part of their core business, which is allowing them to focus on their core products and inject their numbers with large positive sales of said firms.]]>Apr 30th 2008 10:49AMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/
How stupid is GM for being anti-diverse! Think about this for a moment. You make cars and trucks. Then you finance homes! Yeah it makes money for a while but when a recession (Now) hits, you're bleeding until the day the recession is over. By that time, the compounding effects of the poor diversification of the company have taken a stronghold and you're up for the highest bidder!

]]>Apr 30th 2008 1:11PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/Apr 30th 2008 11:49PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/
"How stupid is GM for being anti-diverse! Think about this for a moment. You make cars and trucks. Then you finance homes!"

A automotive financing company that does home mortgages too? Doesn't that actually make them diverse? It's easy to complain about GMAC dragging them down now. But when the economy and housing market were booming, GMAC was a cash cow for GM. Hence, how they were able to make money by selling off such a large share.]]>May 2nd 2008 12:02AMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/I really like them.
I'd buy another big sloshy slow old fashioned GM again.
There's one in my driveway, it's not half bad.]]>Apr 30th 2008 10:58AMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/Apr 30th 2008 11:43AMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/Ford Credit does not do mortgages, GMAC does.

GM is really smart/lucky to have sold 51% of GMAC when it still had value.]]>Apr 30th 2008 11:02AMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/
There's debate as to how good/bad this is :good in that it's a one-time thing, bad in that it means GM was camouflaging how bad things really have been for the past several quarters.

GMAC's position is painful, but it's important to note that GMAC's profits had been floating GM through the last decade. It's not like GMAC has been an albatross for years; they're probably the reason GM is still viable now, and yes, dumping large chunks of them prior to the subprime mortgage crisis was smart.

GM's operational issues are the problem here; they've been losing money in North America for years and it's only an issue now because they haven't been able to hide it any longer. Despite decent product (the Malibu, Cadillac, the GMT900s and Lambdas) they still have too many divisions and models, and they still have a lot of mediocre cars that just aren't moving, especially in the economy market. Ford isn't hurting as badly because Ford seems to understand that they have to have a balanced product mix (Ford is, on the whole, better than average; GM has serious weaknesses) and that it's better to be small and profitable than huge and money-losing. GM doesn't seem to "get" that it doesn't have 50% of the market anymore, and can't waste resources on flashy crap and needless rebadges.]]>Apr 30th 2008 11:18AMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/
It's _ALWAYS_ a one time thing. There was a one time thing last Q and there'll be a one time thing next Q. And the Q after that. And the Q after that. Etc, etc, etc...]]>Apr 30th 2008 11:21AMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/26/gm-increases-exec-salaries-to-normal-levels/]]>Apr 30th 2008 11:18AMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/
B) 1 million = 0.001 Billion. Even if their pay had gone up $50 million, it would be a $3.2B loss without said raises. Any difference? ]]>Apr 30th 2008 12:38PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/
Perhaps we ought to look at American corporate culture a little bit: from the assembly line up (or is that from boardroom down?), it's all about "me" Now, as an old leftie, I find it somewhat repugnant to subordinate to the corporatation as the Japanese do, but perhaps a little bit more civic involvement in corporate affairs would encourage not just better fiscal results, but perhaps better corporate behaviour?]]>Apr 30th 2008 1:00PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/Apr 30th 2008 11:22AMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/
Next is quality!!! when you drive any GM model at 60k miles it feels like its falling apart, when you drive a german car that has 100k it feels better !!

oohh and lets not forget in 1991 bmw 850ci had luxury that Gm is putting on their 2008 models lol talk about being behind lol..]]>Apr 30th 2008 11:58AMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/
Next, things have changed since 1991. Heck, there are options that were on those old Bimmers that even Japanese companies are finally putting into their cars. Here is another example. Toyota announced it was going to put MPG gauges in their vehicles as standard options...this is something Chrysler has been doing for years. GM cars don't fall apart after 60k miles. My 94 Regal has 140k miles on it and still runs like a champ. It has a few squeaks here and there...but what do you expect from a 14 year old vehicle?

And German vehicles have NEVER been the shining beacon of quality and reliability. Even German car owners know this.

LOL at your lame comment.]]>Apr 30th 2008 5:40PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/
The same car today would cost $180-200K I'd guess. Being that it's similar to the current M-B CL65(big, sporty V-12 coupe GT) which is about that cost currently.

There's an apples to oranges comparison if I've ever seen one. GM doesn't even build anything with a V-12 much less a competitor in the V-12 Sport Coupe/GT category.

I'd surely hope that a $100K BMW has more luxury than a mainstream GM car. Otherwise, that wouldn't be a mark on GM, instead, it would be a concern for BMW I'd have to say.

]]>Apr 30th 2008 7:16PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/
If they haven't it has to be due within the next quarter or so.]]>Apr 30th 2008 12:11PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/I do not believe GM has yet.
]]>Apr 30th 2008 2:50PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/gm-posts-3-25-billion-loss-in-q1/
I might have been daydreaming in math class, but I'm fairly certain a loss of three-thousand two-hundred and fifty MILLION dollars looks pretty "worse". Save the popping champagne corks for when GM makes some money instead losing less than expected.]]>Apr 30th 2008 12:13PM