Anyone buying GM Stock in IPO?

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by 1bad65

Mulally didn't need a bailout. Nor is he running around touting an electric car that his company is selling at a loss.

You GM guys sometimes crack me up. If Ford's CEO had came out and said he didn't know anything about cars and if Ford had spent years and years and tons and tons of money developing a car that they admit will lose money, you guys would be calling them the world's greatest buffoons. But since it's GM, you guys are defending them.

What electric car is GM planning on selling at a loss? The closest thing I can think of is the Volt, but thats not an electric car.

[1bad65]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

What electric car is GM planning on selling at a loss? The closest thing I can think of is the Volt, but thats not an electric car.

I should have said plug-in car, my bad. But yes, I was referring to the Volt.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by 1bad65

I think when the President hand-picks the CEO, the Government is in fact running the company.

When I think of 'running a company' I think of actually running it. Things like deciding what to build, where to build it, how much to sell it for, what to research, what their goals should be for 10 years from now ... all that sort of stuff.

Originally Posted by 1bad65

And GM's current CEO, Ed Whitacre, said this when he was chosen as CEO: "“I don’t know anything about cars. A business is a business, and I think I can learn about cars.”

And Mulally was some sort of expert on the auto industry?

[LOWDOWN]

It was Mulally that had the vision, conviction, and courage to tell the Ford family it needed to finance EVERYTHING including World Headquarters and the Blue Oval trademark itself to prepare its "war chest" while the getting was good...and, in hindsight, Ford "accepted" how much money from the Government (you and me) last year?

And what were Rick 'n the boyz doin' while that all was goin' down?

You can pick nits about a LOT of things, but Mulally is NOT one you should "tackle"...speaking of "respect"...

[1bad65]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

When I think of 'running a company' I think of actually running it. Things like deciding what to build, where to build it, how much to sell it for, what to research, what their goals should be for 10 years from now ... all that sort of stuff.

Which are exactly the kind of decisions a CEO makes, right?

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

It was Mulally that had the vision, conviction, and courage to tell the Ford family it needed to finance EVERYTHING including World Headquarters and the Blue Oval trademark itself to prepare its "war chest" while the getting was good...and, in hindsight, Ford "accepted" how much money from the Government (you and me) last year?

And what were Rick 'n the boyz doin' while that all was goin' down?

You can pick nits about a LOT of things, but Mulally is NOT one you should "tackle"...speaking of "respect"...

Exactly, a non-auto guy did all that. So its accepted that Mulally is a great asset to Ford. Yet Whitacre who has admitted he doesn't know cars yet knows how to run a business (which is the same situation Mulally was in when he joined Ford, regardless of whether he said it publicly or not) is somehow a detriment to GM?

Originally Posted by 1bad65

Which are exactly the kind of decisions a CEO makes, right?

And is Obama or any member of the government the CEO? No

[Xanthos]

I'm thinking about buying a couple hundred shares or so when it goes public.
- X

[1bad65]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

And is Obama or any member of the government the CEO? No

Correct. But who is even more powerful than a company's CEO?

[jrc1122]

I'm not buying shares of GM until it proves itself, and it hasn't done so (IMO)

I mean if you count that commerical where they mislead us about how they paid back the bail out already. When in fact they simply shuffled other government funds. IE TAX payer's money, from one side of the sheet to the other.. Then yes they have proved themselves.. Proved to be liars.

But that is all the proof I need to steer clear of GM right now.

[Loud Pedal]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Doesn't matter, since they aren't running GM.

Mmmhmmm

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by LOUDPDL

Mmmhmmm

OMG! He's next to a Focus EV! He must be running Ford too!!!

[Xanthos]

Originally Posted by jrc1122

I'm not buying shares of GM until it proves itself, and it hasn't done so (IMO)

I mean if you count that commerical where they mislead us about how they paid back the bail out already. When in fact they simply shuffled other government funds. IE TAX payer's money, from one side of the sheet to the other.. Then yes they have proved themselves.. Proved to be liars.

But that is all the proof I need to steer clear of GM right now.

Oh my god... This is the biggest bit of misinformation about the bail out ever...

GM did not just "shuffle" money to pay the bailout.

The bailout had multiple sections.

Section A was a loan for X amount.

Section B was a payment of Y amount in exchange for stocks (investment) in the company. GM does not need to repay this money, and in fact cannot, because the government already got its return in the form of stocks. If the government wants money off of those stocks, they simply have to sell them (which they will be doing).

The money from Section A was used to stymie immediate cash flow problems. The money from Section B was put into "savings," for lack of a better term, as a kind of emergency fund. As GM began to return to profitability, and risk slowly dropped, they took some of that Section B "savings" and used to pay off the loan from Section A. The government still has their stocks, and GM simply has less cash on hand.
- X

[1bad65]

Originally Posted by Xanthos

Oh my god... This is the biggest bit of misinformation about the bail out ever...

Actually the guy is 100% correct. GM paid off bailout money with other bailout money, and the CEO tried to hoodwink the public. As for the Government getting stocks for the money, this is true. But no one besides the Government would have touched that stock, it was junk. So the Government literally bought junk with money they don't have in the hope it will become valuable.

Look at Newsweek. Just this week they were sold for $1. Of course the buyer bought it hoping to turn it around (and he now owns the debt as well), but he didn't have to pay millions for a company in the red like the Government did, he got it for $1.

[Xanthos]

Originally Posted by 1bad65

Actually the guy is 100% correct. GM paid off bailout money with other bailout money, and the CEO tried to hoodwink the public. As for the Government getting stocks for the money, this is true. But no one besides the Government would have touched that stock, it was junk. So the Government literally bought junk with money they don't have in the hope it will become valuable.

Look at Newsweek. Just this week they were sold for $1. Of course the buyer bought it hoping to turn it around (and he now owns the debt as well), but he didn't have to pay millions for a company in the red like the Government did, he got it for $1.

I agree 100% that GM paid off bailout money with other bailout-related money.

But what actually happened was that GM paid off their loan with money from the stock sale. That money belongs to GM with no strings attached other than the government getting a profit or loss depending on how the stocks do. Just like any other investment. They are completely within their rights to use investment money to pay off a loan. GM didn't "hoodwink" anybody. They paid off their loan, early and with interest, and stated as much.
- X