Anyone buying GM Stock in IPO?

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Well it's a good thing the gov't doesn't design their cars.

So far, the treasury board members have had no say in day-to-day operations.

They don't HAVE to say anything.

The 4th branch of government has set forth a bunch of requirements which GM is compelled to follow which will shape the designs going forward.

It's amazing to see so many complacent people on a forum dedicated to V8 Musclecars.

In a few years it will pain me greatly to say "I told you so."

[Fraxum]

You have to be kidding. I had GM stock. I held on to it thinking I would keep the faith and help GM. See where they left me? I lost more than the new Z28 will cost with all the options.

Learn from the past. Run from GM stock. Put your money in a CD. You will not make much, but at least you will not lose your shirt.

[Fraxum]

GM didn't need any help from the government to ruin the company. Anything is an improvement.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

I'm no market expert, but I doubt any serious investor is going to look twice at a GM stock offering. This last time GM got in trouble all of the secured creditors got nothing and the unsecured creditors got everything. This is in complete violation of the bankruptcy laws.

Breaking it down, people with investments in the company (like old folks investing their retirement, or working stiffs with 401k's) who are required by law to be first in line in bankruptcy proceedings got robbed of everything. It was handed over to a bunch of unsecured creditors (unions).

What makes you think that it won't happen the next time?

The next time(s) is yet another fallout of Keynesian economics. It leads corporations to preserve capital and look to bailouts. Keynesian economics can work, but it simply takes much longer for it to work. Allowing the market to correct itself (during pre-bailout times) would assert hoarding, faster deflation, more bankruptcies, and a quick return to prosperity.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

What makes you think that it won't happen the next time?

The reduction in dealerships, the renegotiated UAW contracts, fewer brands, new financing arm (coming soon) ... all of those have listed as key elements to why GM failed.

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

I have no faith in a future product lineup planned and executed under government ownership. I know of no government owned entities that have ever been successful in the long run.

As a potential investor, I would also be greatly concerned by the UAW, which is already agitating to roll back their concessions and start getting "their share" again after just a single profitable quarter. It's not hard to foresee where all this will end, because we already saw it last year.

I know of several examples of profitable crown corps (thats what we call government owned & operated businesses up here) and several that are nothing but a money pit. But what does that have to do with this? GM isn't being run by the US, Canadian, or Ontario governments. There isn't some government committee making product planning decisions. Why would they even bother when they can make laws that dictate what every automakers has to sell?

Anyway, all the government and UAW shares will be sold in order to get back money which was owed to them by General Motors Corporation, so there goes the concerns about long term ownership.

I wouldn't worry too much about the UAW for a while. Their focus is on expanding their membership base at the moment, they won't ask for too much from the big 3.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

The reduction in dealerships, the renegotiated UAW contracts, fewer brands, new financing arm (coming soon) ... all of those have listed as key elements to why GM failed.

This is what GM emerged with after the bankruptcy phase?

I know of several examples of profitable crown corps (thats what we call government owned & operated businesses up here) and several that are nothing but a money pit. But what does that have to do with this? GM isn't being run by the US, Canadian, or Ontario governments. There isn't some government committee making product planning decisions. Why would they even bother when they can make laws that dictate what every automakers has to sell?

Anyway, all the government and UAW shares will be sold in order to get back money which was owed to them by General Motors Corporation, so there goes the concerns about long term ownership.

I wouldn't worry too much about the UAW for a while. Their focus is on expanding their membership base at the moment, they won't ask for too much from the big 3.

Agreed for the most part.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

How about this:

Unlikely. The UAW can go nowhere if the company puts their foot down. Strikes aside, after what just happened, the UAW is in no position to strong arm their way back into a leeching organization.

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

They don't HAVE to say anything.

The 4th branch of government has set forth a bunch of requirements which GM is compelled to follow which will shape the designs going forward.

It's amazing to see so many complacent people on a forum dedicated to V8 Musclecars.

In a few years it will pain me greatly to say "I told you so."

Complacent? Hardly!! I just don't misrepresent what's going on.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

They don't HAVE to say anything.

The 4th branch of government has set forth a bunch of requirements which GM is compelled to follow which will shape the designs going forward.

It's amazing to see so many complacent people on a forum dedicated to V8 Musclecars.

In a few years it will pain me greatly to say "I told you so."

Correct, for "better" or for "worse."

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Well it's a good thing the gov't doesn't design their cars.

So far, the treasury board members have had no say in day-to-day operations.

Originally Posted by DGthe3

The reduction in dealerships, the renegotiated UAW contracts, fewer brands, new financing arm (coming soon) ... all of those have listed as key elements to why GM failed.


I know of several examples of profitable crown corps (thats what we call government owned & operated businesses up here) and several that are nothing but a money pit. But what does that have to do with this? GM isn't being run by the US, Canadian, or Ontario governments. There isn't some government committee making product planning decisions. Why would they even bother when they can make laws that dictate what every automakers has to sell?

Can anyone give a single specific example of an American government owned entity that proved successful in the long run?

It was reported last week that the new financing arm is coming through the acquisition of a lender that specialized in sub-prime car loans. Sounds like more of a potential disaster than even GMAC.

As for the government is not running the operations arguments, I'm not sure I understand what you mean? Are you suggesting that the government is not interfering with/installing members of the board and key management personnel by executive fiat? The government may not be running the companies directly, but their puppets are.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

Can anyone give a single specific example of an American government owned entity that proved successful in the long run?

Well...the country is....but a company? No.

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

As for the government is not running the operations arguments, I'm not sure I understand what you mean? Are you suggesting that the government is not interfering with/installing members of the board and key management personnel by executive fiat? The government may not be running the companies directly, but their puppets are.

I'm talking about GM. And I'm saying unequivocally, the treasury, despite owning the majority stake in the company, has no interest in and has displayed no actions of direct control of the company. Standards, and regulations aside, the government is not interfering with General Motors. In fact....I distinctly remember an article reading that when the "auto task force" went to GM to basically get a feel for the company...and their favorite car they test drove on the proving grounds was the CTS-V. (And they drove a Volt prototype, iirc)

You might remember Bob Lutz went on record saying that he was *this* close to resigning when he discovered the gov't would have members on the board. He quickly realized they were only interested in making sure the company was profitable and financially healthy...at this point, he decided to stay on for a while longer. Until finally deciding (again) to retire and take a well-earned break.

[futrocpd]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

80% of people lose in the futures market. That's how the other 20% make so much more. There also aren't shares of GM in the futures market.

lol, then they must not use the right indicators then. I personally have made almost 3k in 6 days.

[All-Or-Nothing]

I have made a killing with my Ford stocks. GM I will not touch with someone else's money.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

Can anyone give a single specific example of an American government owned entity that proved successful in the long run?

Why do you care about the long term effects when the ownership is short term? Makes no sense to me. Sorta like worrying about the cost of replacing an engine for a car, when you only have a 3 year lease.

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

It was reported last week that the new financing arm is coming through the acquisition of a lender that specialized in sub-prime car loans. Sounds like more of a potential disaster than even GMAC.

Did you also read that they came away from the financial and auto melt down of 2008 nearly unscathed?

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Why do you care about the long term effects when the ownership is short term? Makes no sense to me. Sorta like worrying about the cost of replacing an engine for a car, when you only have a 3 year lease.

Did you also read that they came away from the financial and auto melt down of 2008 nearly unscathed?

Because nothing involving the government is ever, ever, ever short term. History has proven that once the government wraps its tentacles around anything, it never lets go, it keeps squeezing harder.

The financial company GM is going after did fine because it charged high enough interest rates to make a profit by taking on the risk.

I should probably clarify that this individual finance company is not my concern. I am worried about GM owning any finance company because the temptation to give out loans to people at rates too low to cover people's credit risk to keep the cars moving will at some point be too much to resist. GM is a car company, not a finance company, and when I see GM looking to get into the finance business again, I see them repeating the same old mistakes that got them in trouble with GMAC. I fear they are sowing the seeds of yet another "rob Peter to pay Paul" business plan.