| Author |
Message |
Dad
Guest
|
 Posted:
Thu Dec 08, 2005 9:15 am Post subject:
Re: GM should give a 10 year/100,000 mile powertrain warrant |
|
|
James C. Reeves wrote:
| Quote: | "Dad" <knockers@fisher.net> wrote in message
news:bPKdnYy1Ycm-Tg7eRVn-uQ@rogers.com...
John Horner wrote:
People who do not have good arguments always resort to insult and
other forms of personal attack. I guess that in your world GM is
doing everything right and has nothing to worry about. Enjoy your
world.
John
What a wussy copout John! If you find it insulting that I criticize your
ludicrous suggestion, you have to grow thicker skin. I find it ironic that
the lack of common sense displayed by your silly recommendation is the
same lack of common sense that got GM into trouble in the first place!
How's that for irony?
Although I'm sure John can speak for himslef, I don't think he was referring
to the fact that you disagree with the idea. It is certaintly fine and
respectable that you don't think the idea has merit (based on what basis of
statistical/research, I have no idea). I believe he was referring to the
use of tems like "wussy" and statements like "I bet this person is smarter
than you are..." types of responses. Which, in the end, is more of a
reflection on the person using such forms of dialog in a civil discussion
than it is a reflection on the person it was aimed at.
|
Another wussy copout! I find it extremely interesting that you "what
basis of statistical/research" I base my opinions, when you clearly
continue to advocate that we "study" the matter! *lol
| Quote: |
In my world, GM is indeed doing a lot of things right.
There is a fair amount of truth to the statement that GM is doing a lot of
things right. No question. However, the results in the real world (which
is apparently a different world than your world, it seems) is that their
business is failing and loosing market share by the minute. They have to do
better in the areas where they aren't doing things right (or as well as they
could).
The recent U.S./Canada announcement was a major step for them. Only time
will tell the full story. As someone said in an earlier post, GM still has
the financial wherewithall to get through these tough times, now that
major cost-cutting plans are in place and being executed.
And we are all with you in the hopes that you are right, I'm sure. However,
that "announcement" only addresses the "cost" side of the balance sheet.
They still need to address the declining "revenue" side of the balance
sheet.
|
James, there you go talking about something you have little knowledge
of! Did you not look at the link that Stingray provided to GM's SEC
filings? For the 9 months ended Sept.30/05, Revenue held up pretty well
year over year. Consolidated Revenue for 2005 was $141,424M (Million)
vs. $141,983M in 2004. That's a decrease year to year of only $ 559M or
3.9/1000 of 1 % James! Does that sound earth shattering to you and your
financial advisors?
| Quote: | The ideal company business model is to see *both* revenues and costs
rising (i.e. growth). Management of a successful company will focus on what
it takes to enhance the revenue side. Announcing "cost cuts" is, in
business terms, admitting a declining business at best and defeat at worst.
Hardly gives one the "warm-and-fuzzies" (Management in a position of being
backed up against the wall right now by their own doing).
For my money, the GM execs are a lot brighter than you and Mr. Reeves.
That certaintly could be the case. Perhaps it is likely the case
|
LMAO!!! James, don't fool yourself! It is definitely the case!
| Quote: | (I don't
know Mr. Horner). However that isn't relivant and isn't the point. Those
execs you speak of have racked up $278 billion (yes billion!) in debt on top
of a "profit" of negative $6 billion a year with just a little over 18-20
billion in cash. Do you have any idea how much money it takes to service
the interest on a debt of $278 billion? Basically they have 2-3 years on
the outside to make something drastic happen. With their corporate bond
rating of "junk", the cost of money for GM is very high compared to their
competitors. Another competitive disadvantage to add to the list.
|
James, let it be clear that GM borrows money a lot cheaper than you! You
continue to use erroneous financial figures, which Stingray already took
you to task on, in his response to your post of November 29th under the
subject entitled "GM Hedge Funds". Stingray proved that all your numbers
were wrong James! Let me repost his message for you, a message
incidentally that you failed to respond to! Please read it this time!
Here it is:
_____________________________________________________________________________
"StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message news:jridndPmOOUtkxDeRVn-pQ
"James C. Reeves" <jcnospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:NPidnbjATYWtZRHenZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
| Quote: | Must be since most of the financial guys that study the books of
companies
are quite worried. Probably more a denial thing, actually. GM isn't
beyond hope. All they need to do is figure out how to pay off ~278
billion dollars in debt with the ~18 billion dollars they have in the
bank
while loosing an additional 6 billion dollars a year. Should be a piece
of cake! ;-)
|
James, I am a "financial guy" and I'm puzzled by your debt figure, as
well as your 18 billion dollar figure. I just visited GM's site and
pulled off their SEC Filings. If you'd like to see them, they are at
this address:
http://www.gm.com/company/investor_information/sec/
You will note therein that GM had "Total Debt" of $ 446 Billion at that
time. But the most important figure is the company's "Current Debt",
which was recorded at $ 74.7Billion. Now if you take a look at the
Assets, you will see "Current Assets" of $ 53.8Billion. To this, you
have to add the Current Assets of Financing and Insurance Operations,
which look like this:
Cash & Cash Equivalents $ 21.4Billion
Investments in Securities 16.5Billion
Finance Receivables - Net 177.0Billion
Loans Held For Sale 17.6Billion
Assets Held For Sale 18.7Billion
-------------------
Current Assets of $ 251.2Billion
Financing & Ins. Ops.
Now James, if we add this figure to the $ 53.8Billion figure above, we
find that as at September 30, 2005, GM had Total Current Assets of
$ 305Billion, which would quite easily handle their Current Debt, which
was $ 74.7 Billion. I fail to see the liquidity crisis you seem to
allude to. Even if GM had a temporary liquidity problem at some point,
they could raise Billions of dollars quite quickly by leveraging up some
of their Fixed Assets, which I'm sure would have substantial value over
Book Value. So let's not get out the shovels to bury GM just yet. Her
demise is highly exaggerated and the funeral wake is premature.
__________________________________________________________________________
James, you continue to use those financial numbers that you apparently
dreamed up. As Stingray pointed out, you are way off=base!
| Quote: |
They have gotten through tough times before and GM will surely be in
business when you and I are long gone!
I sure hope so, for my grandkids sake! There are some very respectable
financial people that don't seem as sure as you do.
|
Respected by whom James? You and John Horner? Name one well-known
respected financial person James. Or did you simply jump on the
bandwagon of the uninformed? Oh right, that's exactly what you did, as
demonstrated by your incredibly uninformed figures for debt and bank
balance! *lol*
| Quote: | Also remember the
common investment advise! Performance history does not predict future
performance. In other words, what transpired before had no relivance to
what will transpire in the future. The fact that GM recovered before means
nothing to the current situation. Each situation is different.
|
Ah, you're finally catching on!
| Quote: |
It's too easy to use that tired excuse "It's management's fault that the
company has problems."
Who's fault is it?
|
Yours for buying imports! Unions for negotiating too well! The U.S.
government for not ensuring a level playing field before allowing a
major influx of imports! GM management in some cases! GM employees who
drive imports to work every day! People like you who seemingly "make up"
completely false financial numbers and then publish them! (By the way,
where did you get those numbers?)
| Quote: |
That's another wussy copout John.
Since when is it a copout for management to accept blame and do something
about it? To say it's someone elses fault is the copout.
|
Read my comment again James! Come on James - you can do it - put it all
together! You appear to have missed it! Let me quote: "It's too easy to
use that tired excuse "It's management's fault that the company has
problems. That's another wussy copout John. You could say that every
time a company fails. With a major, complex entity like GM, there are
far too many influencing factors to pin the sole blame on management.
Management don't have reliable crystal balls John that tell them just
how effectively foreign competition is going to impact them. Nor can
they forcast how many short-sighted Americans are going to buy
imported cars for the short-term financial gain. Many detrimental
factors are well beyond management control John. Open your eyes and mind
John. There is none so blind as he who will not see! "
| Quote: |
You could say that every time a company fails. With a major, complex
entity like GM, there are far too many influencing factors to pin the sole
blame on management.
Of course! That *is* who is to blame. Copout and excuses noted.
|
You are too thick to be believed James! There are so many forms of risk
that effect a company like GM James. Do you know what "sovereign risk"
is James? It's a major factor for GM. Look it up! Do you know what
"currency risk" is James? It's another major factor for GM. Look it up
James! Both of these are risks beyond the ability of GM to control
directly, although they can do some currency hedges (risky business in
itself) to mitigate currency risk. There are literally hundreds of risks
beyond the direct control of management in a mutinational company.
| Quote: |
Management don't have reliable crystal balls John that tell them just how
effectively foreign competition is going to impact them.
No, but they have (or should have) technology like data warehouse systems
and management reports that would tell them exactly these things. It isn't
ricket science. If they don't have those tools, its their fault they don't
(again).
|
Well, it may not be "ricket science" but it's obviously beyond your
comprehension! That previous paragraph was complete gobbledygook James.
It makes no sense whatsoever!
| Quote: |
Nor can they forcast how many short-sighted Americans are going to buy
imported cars for the short-term financial gain. Many detrimental factors
are well beyond management control John. Open your eyes and mind John.
There is none so blind as he who will not see!
Copout noted.
|
Indeed!
| Quote: |
So, instead of doing some research and running some numbers to see for sure
if looking into an idea like this might help to increase sales, management
should just poo-poo it out-of-hand like you are and sit back and do nothing
else except close plants and fire people? I'm not buying your version of a
plan "dad". Remember, the revenue side of the balance sheet needs help and
needs it badly.
|
You have just proven once again that you ignored Stingray's response to
your post. He did the real research James. You're just blowing smoke. I
challenge you to respond to Stingray. ;-)
| Quote: |
Now, I'll ask again. What alternative ideas do you have that might increase
sales?
|
Revenue looks pretty good year to year James. You'd better look at the
real numbers at http://www.gm.com/company/investor_information/sec/
What numbers are you looking at? Ha, Ha!
| Quote: |
o John has put forth the idea to look at increasing
warranty coverage.
o I say turn the damn annoying daytime lights off if a
customer wants them off (among other things)
o What do you say?
|
I say that you sound like "Chicken Little", running around saying that
"the sky is falling" when you still haven't taken the time to inform
yourself by looking at GM's actual financial results! Go learn the truth
James, then we can discuss these matters on a level playing field. Right
now you're just making a fool of yourself because you're so far off-base
with your financial comments. And that's what this discussion is all
about James - GM's financial position. And when your whole position is
based on an incredibly faulty knowlege of GM's financial position, it
follows that your resultant comments are laughable at best and
defamatory/libelous at worst. ;-)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
StingRay
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 08, 2005 9:15 am Post subject:
Re: GM should give a 10 year/100,000 mile powertrain warrant |
|
|
Dad, pardon my top posting here, but your exchange with James is pretty
lengthy. You've brought up some good points and I would have to agree with
you that James never read my post of November 29th. I'm glad to hear that
someone did! *lol* I must confess that I was disappointed that James never
responded to my message but I mistakenly thought that he had probably read
it but didn't want to embarrass himself by responding. Clearly this is not
the case. If he did read it, he must not have understood it. I hope he
accepts your invitation to respond. By the way, it's StingRay, not Stingray.
It's a long story but the early Corvette Sting Ray was two words. No big
deal!
"Dad" <knockers@fisher.net> wrote in message
news:tNSdndGkBLOuNAreRVn-tQ@rogers.com...
| Quote: | James C. Reeves wrote:
"Dad" <knockers@fisher.net> wrote in message
news:bPKdnYy1Ycm-Tg7eRVn-uQ@rogers.com...
John Horner wrote:
People who do not have good arguments always resort to insult and
other forms of personal attack. I guess that in your world GM is
doing everything right and has nothing to worry about. Enjoy your
world.
John
What a wussy copout John! If you find it insulting that I criticize your
ludicrous suggestion, you have to grow thicker skin. I find it ironic
that the lack of common sense displayed by your silly recommendation is
the same lack of common sense that got GM into trouble in the first
place! How's that for irony?
Although I'm sure John can speak for himslef, I don't think he was
referring to the fact that you disagree with the idea. It is certaintly
fine and respectable that you don't think the idea has merit (based on
what basis of statistical/research, I have no idea). I believe he was
referring to the use of tems like "wussy" and statements like "I bet this
person is smarter than you are..." types of responses. Which, in the
end, is more of a reflection on the person using such forms of dialog in
a civil discussion than it is a reflection on the person it was aimed at.
Another wussy copout! I find it extremely interesting that you "what basis
of statistical/research" I base my opinions, when you clearly continue to
advocate that we "study" the matter! *lol
In my world, GM is indeed doing a lot of things right.
There is a fair amount of truth to the statement that GM is doing a lot
of things right. No question. However, the results in the real world
(which is apparently a different world than your world, it seems) is that
their business is failing and loosing market share by the minute. They
have to do better in the areas where they aren't doing things right (or
as well as they could).
The recent U.S./Canada announcement was a major step for them. Only time
will tell the full story. As someone said in an earlier post, GM still
has the financial wherewithall to get through these tough times, now that
major cost-cutting plans are in place and being executed.
And we are all with you in the hopes that you are right, I'm sure.
However, that "announcement" only addresses the "cost" side of the
balance sheet. They still need to address the declining "revenue" side of
the balance sheet.
James, there you go talking about something you have little knowledge of!
Did you not look at the link that Stingray provided to GM's SEC filings?
For the 9 months ended Sept.30/05, Revenue held up pretty well year over
year. Consolidated Revenue for 2005 was $141,424M (Million) vs. $141,983M
in 2004. That's a decrease year to year of only $ 559M or 3.9/1000 of 1 %
James! Does that sound earth shattering to you and your financial
advisors?
The ideal company business model is to see *both* revenues and costs
rising (i.e. growth). Management of a successful company will focus on
what it takes to enhance the revenue side. Announcing "cost cuts" is, in
business terms, admitting a declining business at best and defeat at
worst. Hardly gives one the "warm-and-fuzzies" (Management in a position
of being backed up against the wall right now by their own doing).
For my money, the GM execs are a lot brighter than you and Mr. Reeves.
That certaintly could be the case. Perhaps it is likely the case
LMAO!!! James, don't fool yourself! It is definitely the case!
(I don't know Mr. Horner). However that isn't relivant and isn't the
point. Those execs you speak of have racked up $278 billion (yes
billion!) in debt on top of a "profit" of negative $6 billion a year with
just a little over 18-20 billion in cash. Do you have any idea how much
money it takes to service the interest on a debt of $278 billion?
Basically they have 2-3 years on the outside to make something drastic
happen. With their corporate bond rating of "junk", the cost of money for
GM is very high compared to their competitors. Another competitive
disadvantage to add to the list.
James, let it be clear that GM borrows money a lot cheaper than you! You
continue to use erroneous financial figures, which Stingray already took
you to task on, in his response to your post of November 29th under the
subject entitled "GM Hedge Funds". Stingray proved that all your numbers
were wrong James! Let me repost his message for you, a message
incidentally that you failed to respond to! Please read it this time! Here
it is:
_____________________________________________________________________________
"StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
news:jridndPmOOUtkxDeRVn-pQ
"James C. Reeves" <jcnospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:NPidnbjATYWtZRHenZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Must be since most of the financial guys that study the books of
companies
are quite worried. Probably more a denial thing, actually. GM isn't
beyond hope. All they need to do is figure out how to pay off ~278
billion dollars in debt with the ~18 billion dollars they have in the
bank
while loosing an additional 6 billion dollars a year. Should be a piece
of cake! ;-)
James, I am a "financial guy" and I'm puzzled by your debt figure, as well
as your 18 billion dollar figure. I just visited GM's site and pulled off
their SEC Filings. If you'd like to see them, they are at this address:
http://www.gm.com/company/investor_information/sec/
You will note therein that GM had "Total Debt" of $ 446 Billion at that
time. But the most important figure is the company's "Current Debt",
which was recorded at $ 74.7Billion. Now if you take a look at the Assets,
you will see "Current Assets" of $ 53.8Billion. To this, you have to add
the Current Assets of Financing and Insurance Operations, which look like
this:
Cash & Cash Equivalents $ 21.4Billion
Investments in Securities 16.5Billion
Finance Receivables - Net 177.0Billion
Loans Held For Sale 17.6Billion
Assets Held For Sale 18.7Billion
-------------------
Current Assets of $ 251.2Billion
Financing & Ins. Ops.
Now James, if we add this figure to the $ 53.8Billion figure above, we
find that as at September 30, 2005, GM had Total Current Assets of
$ 305Billion, which would quite easily handle their Current Debt, which
was $ 74.7 Billion. I fail to see the liquidity crisis you seem to allude
to. Even if GM had a temporary liquidity problem at some point, they could
raise Billions of dollars quite quickly by leveraging up some of their
Fixed Assets, which I'm sure would have substantial value over Book Value.
So let's not get out the shovels to bury GM just yet. Her demise is highly
exaggerated and the funeral wake is premature.
__________________________________________________________________________
James, you continue to use those financial numbers that you apparently
dreamed up. As Stingray pointed out, you are way off=base!
They have gotten through tough times before and GM will surely be in
business when you and I are long gone!
I sure hope so, for my grandkids sake! There are some very respectable
financial people that don't seem as sure as you do.
Respected by whom James? You and John Horner? Name one well-known
respected financial person James. Or did you simply jump on the bandwagon
of the uninformed? Oh right, that's exactly what you did, as demonstrated
by your incredibly uninformed figures for debt and bank balance! *lol*
Also remember the common investment advise! Performance history does not
predict future performance. In other words, what transpired before had
no relivance to what will transpire in the future. The fact that GM
recovered before means nothing to the current situation. Each situation
is different.
Ah, you're finally catching on!
It's too easy to use that tired excuse "It's management's fault that the
company has problems."
Who's fault is it?
Yours for buying imports! Unions for negotiating too well! The U.S.
government for not ensuring a level playing field before allowing a major
influx of imports! GM management in some cases! GM employees who drive
imports to work every day! People like you who seemingly "make up"
completely false financial numbers and then publish them! (By the way,
where did you get those numbers?)
That's another wussy copout John.
Since when is it a copout for management to accept blame and do something
about it? To say it's someone elses fault is the copout.
Read my comment again James! Come on James - you can do it - put it all
together! You appear to have missed it! Let me quote: "It's too easy to
use that tired excuse "It's management's fault that the company has
problems. That's another wussy copout John. You could say that every time
a company fails. With a major, complex entity like GM, there are far too
many influencing factors to pin the sole blame on management. Management
don't have reliable crystal balls John that tell them just how effectively
foreign competition is going to impact them. Nor can they forcast how
many short-sighted Americans are going to buy
imported cars for the short-term financial gain. Many detrimental factors
are well beyond management control John. Open your eyes and mind John.
There is none so blind as he who will not see! "
You could say that every time a company fails. With a major, complex
entity like GM, there are far too many influencing factors to pin the
sole blame on management.
Of course! That *is* who is to blame. Copout and excuses noted.
You are too thick to be believed James! There are so many forms of risk
that effect a company like GM James. Do you know what "sovereign risk" is
James? It's a major factor for GM. Look it up! Do you know what "currency
risk" is James? It's another major factor for GM. Look it up James! Both
of these are risks beyond the ability of GM to control directly, although
they can do some currency hedges (risky business in itself) to mitigate
currency risk. There are literally hundreds of risks beyond the direct
control of management in a mutinational company.
Management don't have reliable crystal balls John that tell them just how
effectively foreign competition is going to impact them.
No, but they have (or should have) technology like data warehouse systems
and management reports that would tell them exactly these things. It
isn't ricket science. If they don't have those tools, its their fault
they don't (again).
Well, it may not be "ricket science" but it's obviously beyond your
comprehension! That previous paragraph was complete gobbledygook James. It
makes no sense whatsoever!
Nor can they forcast how many short-sighted Americans are going to buy
imported cars for the short-term financial gain. Many detrimental factors
are well beyond management control John. Open your eyes and mind John.
There is none so blind as he who will not see!
Copout noted.
Indeed!
So, instead of doing some research and running some numbers to see for
sure if looking into an idea like this might help to increase sales,
management should just poo-poo it out-of-hand like you are and sit back
and do nothing else except close plants and fire people? I'm not buying
your version of a plan "dad". Remember, the revenue side of the balance
sheet needs help and needs it badly.
You have just proven once again that you ignored Stingray's response to
your post. He did the real research James. You're just blowing smoke. I
challenge you to respond to Stingray. ;-)
Now, I'll ask again. What alternative ideas do you have that might
increase sales?
Revenue looks pretty good year to year James. You'd better look at the
real numbers at http://www.gm.com/company/investor_information/sec/ What
numbers are you looking at? Ha, Ha!
o John has put forth the idea to look at increasing
warranty coverage.
o I say turn the damn annoying daytime lights off if a
customer wants them off (among other things)
o What do you say?
I say that you sound like "Chicken Little", running around saying that
"the sky is falling" when you still haven't taken the time to inform
yourself by looking at GM's actual financial results! Go learn the truth
James, then we can discuss these matters on a level playing field. Right
now you're just making a fool of yourself because you're so far off-base
with your financial comments. And that's what this discussion is all about
James - GM's financial position. And when your whole position is based on
an incredibly faulty knowlege of GM's financial position, it follows that
your resultant comments are laughable at best and defamatory/libelous at
worst. ;-) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dad
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:05 am Post subject:
Re: GM should give a 10 year/100,000 mile powertrain warrant |
|
|
StingRay wrote:
| Quote: | Dad, pardon my top posting here, but your exchange with James is pretty
lengthy. You've brought up some good points and I would have to agree with
you that James never read my post of November 29th. I'm glad to hear that
someone did! *lol* I must confess that I was disappointed that James never
responded to my message but I mistakenly thought that he had probably read
it but didn't want to embarrass himself by responding. Clearly this is not
the case. If he did read it, he must not have understood it. I hope he
accepts your invitation to respond. By the way, it's StingRay, not Stingray.
It's a long story but the early Corvette Sting Ray was two words. No big
deal!
"Dad" <knockers@fisher.net> wrote in message
news:tNSdndGkBLOuNAreRVn-tQ@rogers.com...
James C. Reeves wrote:
"Dad" <knockers@fisher.net> wrote in message
news:bPKdnYy1Ycm-Tg7eRVn-uQ@rogers.com...
John Horner wrote:
People who do not have good arguments always resort to insult and
other forms of personal attack. I guess that in your world GM is
doing everything right and has nothing to worry about. Enjoy your
world.
John
What a wussy copout John! If you find it insulting that I criticize your
ludicrous suggestion, you have to grow thicker skin. I find it ironic
that the lack of common sense displayed by your silly recommendation is
the same lack of common sense that got GM into trouble in the first
place! How's that for irony?
Although I'm sure John can speak for himslef, I don't think he was
referring to the fact that you disagree with the idea. It is certaintly
fine and respectable that you don't think the idea has merit (based on
what basis of statistical/research, I have no idea). I believe he was
referring to the use of tems like "wussy" and statements like "I bet this
person is smarter than you are..." types of responses. Which, in the
end, is more of a reflection on the person using such forms of dialog in
a civil discussion than it is a reflection on the person it was aimed at.
Another wussy copout! I find it extremely interesting that you "what basis
of statistical/research" I base my opinions, when you clearly continue to
advocate that we "study" the matter! *lol
In my world, GM is indeed doing a lot of things right.
There is a fair amount of truth to the statement that GM is doing a lot
of things right. No question. However, the results in the real world
(which is apparently a different world than your world, it seems) is that
their business is failing and loosing market share by the minute. They
have to do better in the areas where they aren't doing things right (or
as well as they could).
The recent U.S./Canada announcement was a major step for them. Only time
will tell the full story. As someone said in an earlier post, GM still
has the financial wherewithall to get through these tough times, now that
major cost-cutting plans are in place and being executed.
And we are all with you in the hopes that you are right, I'm sure.
However, that "announcement" only addresses the "cost" side of the
balance sheet. They still need to address the declining "revenue" side of
the balance sheet.
James, there you go talking about something you have little knowledge of!
Did you not look at the link that Stingray provided to GM's SEC filings?
For the 9 months ended Sept.30/05, Revenue held up pretty well year over
year. Consolidated Revenue for 2005 was $141,424M (Million) vs. $141,983M
in 2004. That's a decrease year to year of only $ 559M or 3.9/1000 of 1 %
James! Does that sound earth shattering to you and your financial
advisors?
The ideal company business model is to see *both* revenues and costs
rising (i.e. growth). Management of a successful company will focus on
what it takes to enhance the revenue side. Announcing "cost cuts" is, in
business terms, admitting a declining business at best and defeat at
worst. Hardly gives one the "warm-and-fuzzies" (Management in a position
of being backed up against the wall right now by their own doing).
For my money, the GM execs are a lot brighter than you and Mr. Reeves.
That certaintly could be the case. Perhaps it is likely the case
LMAO!!! James, don't fool yourself! It is definitely the case!
(I don't know Mr. Horner). However that isn't relivant and isn't the
point. Those execs you speak of have racked up $278 billion (yes
billion!) in debt on top of a "profit" of negative $6 billion a year with
just a little over 18-20 billion in cash. Do you have any idea how much
money it takes to service the interest on a debt of $278 billion?
Basically they have 2-3 years on the outside to make something drastic
happen. With their corporate bond rating of "junk", the cost of money for
GM is very high compared to their competitors. Another competitive
disadvantage to add to the list.
James, let it be clear that GM borrows money a lot cheaper than you! You
continue to use erroneous financial figures, which Stingray already took
you to task on, in his response to your post of November 29th under the
subject entitled "GM Hedge Funds". Stingray proved that all your numbers
were wrong James! Let me repost his message for you, a message
incidentally that you failed to respond to! Please read it this time! Here
it is:
_____________________________________________________________________________
"StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
news:jridndPmOOUtkxDeRVn-pQ
"James C. Reeves" <jcnospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:NPidnbjATYWtZRHenZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Must be since most of the financial guys that study the books of
companies
are quite worried. Probably more a denial thing, actually. GM isn't
beyond hope. All they need to do is figure out how to pay off ~278
billion dollars in debt with the ~18 billion dollars they have in the
bank
while loosing an additional 6 billion dollars a year. Should be a piece
of cake! ;-)
James, I am a "financial guy" and I'm puzzled by your debt figure, as well
as your 18 billion dollar figure. I just visited GM's site and pulled off
their SEC Filings. If you'd like to see them, they are at this address:
http://www.gm.com/company/investor_information/sec/
You will note therein that GM had "Total Debt" of $ 446 Billion at that
time. But the most important figure is the company's "Current Debt",
which was recorded at $ 74.7Billion. Now if you take a look at the Assets,
you will see "Current Assets" of $ 53.8Billion. To this, you have to add
the Current Assets of Financing and Insurance Operations, which look like
this:
Cash & Cash Equivalents $ 21.4Billion
Investments in Securities 16.5Billion
Finance Receivables - Net 177.0Billion
Loans Held For Sale 17.6Billion
Assets Held For Sale 18.7Billion
-------------------
Current Assets of $ 251.2Billion
Financing & Ins. Ops.
Now James, if we add this figure to the $ 53.8Billion figure above, we
find that as at September 30, 2005, GM had Total Current Assets of
$ 305Billion, which would quite easily handle their Current Debt, which
was $ 74.7 Billion. I fail to see the liquidity crisis you seem to allude
to. Even if GM had a temporary liquidity problem at some point, they could
raise Billions of dollars quite quickly by leveraging up some of their
Fixed Assets, which I'm sure would have substantial value over Book Value.
So let's not get out the shovels to bury GM just yet. Her demise is highly
exaggerated and the funeral wake is premature.
__________________________________________________________________________
James, you continue to use those financial numbers that you apparently
dreamed up. As Stingray pointed out, you are way off=base!
They have gotten through tough times before and GM will surely be in
business when you and I are long gone!
I sure hope so, for my grandkids sake! There are some very respectable
financial people that don't seem as sure as you do.
Respected by whom James? You and John Horner? Name one well-known
respected financial person James. Or did you simply jump on the bandwagon
of the uninformed? Oh right, that's exactly what you did, as demonstrated
by your incredibly uninformed figures for debt and bank balance! *lol*
Also remember the common investment advise! Performance history does not
predict future performance. In other words, what transpired before had
no relivance to what will transpire in the future. The fact that GM
recovered before means nothing to the current situation. Each situation
is different.
Ah, you're finally catching on!
It's too easy to use that tired excuse "It's management's fault that the
company has problems."
Who's fault is it?
Yours for buying imports! Unions for negotiating too well! The U.S.
government for not ensuring a level playing field before allowing a major
influx of imports! GM management in some cases! GM employees who drive
imports to work every day! People like you who seemingly "make up"
completely false financial numbers and then publish them! (By the way,
where did you get those numbers?)
That's another wussy copout John.
Since when is it a copout for management to accept blame and do something
about it? To say it's someone elses fault is the copout.
Read my comment again James! Come on James - you can do it - put it all
together! You appear to have missed it! Let me quote: "It's too easy to
use that tired excuse "It's management's fault that the company has
problems. That's another wussy copout John. You could say that every time
a company fails. With a major, complex entity like GM, there are far too
many influencing factors to pin the sole blame on management. Management
don't have reliable crystal balls John that tell them just how effectively
foreign competition is going to impact them. Nor can they forcast how
many short-sighted Americans are going to buy
imported cars for the short-term financial gain. Many detrimental factors
are well beyond management control John. Open your eyes and mind John.
There is none so blind as he who will not see! "
You could say that every time a company fails. With a major, complex
entity like GM, there are far too many influencing factors to pin the
sole blame on management.
Of course! That *is* who is to blame. Copout and excuses noted.
You are too thick to be believed James! There are so many forms of risk
that effect a company like GM James. Do you know what "sovereign risk" is
James? It's a major factor for GM. Look it up! Do you know what "currency
risk" is James? It's another major factor for GM. Look it up James! Both
of these are risks beyond the ability of GM to control directly, although
they can do some currency hedges (risky business in itself) to mitigate
currency risk. There are literally hundreds of risks beyond the direct
control of management in a mutinational company.
Management don't have reliable crystal balls John that tell them just how
effectively foreign competition is going to impact them.
No, but they have (or should have) technology like data warehouse systems
and management reports that would tell them exactly these things. It
isn't ricket science. If they don't have those tools, its their fault
they don't (again).
Well, it may not be "ricket science" but it's obviously beyond your
comprehension! That previous paragraph was complete gobbledygook James. It
makes no sense whatsoever!
Nor can they forcast how many short-sighted Americans are going to buy
imported cars for the short-term financial gain. Many detrimental factors
are well beyond management control John. Open your eyes and mind John.
There is none so blind as he who will not see!
Copout noted.
Indeed!
So, instead of doing some research and running some numbers to see for
sure if looking into an idea like this might help to increase sales,
management should just poo-poo it out-of-hand like you are and sit back
and do nothing else except close plants and fire people? I'm not buying
your version of a plan "dad". Remember, the revenue side of the balance
sheet needs help and needs it badly.
You have just proven once again that you ignored Stingray's response to
your post. He did the real research James. You're just blowing smoke. I
challenge you to respond to Stingray. ;-)
Now, I'll ask again. What alternative ideas do you have that might
increase sales?
Revenue looks pretty good year to year James. You'd better look at the
real numbers at http://www.gm.com/company/investor_information/sec/ What
numbers are you looking at? Ha, Ha!
o John has put forth the idea to look at increasing
warranty coverage.
o I say turn the damn annoying daytime lights off if a
customer wants them off (among other things)
o What do you say?
I say that you sound like "Chicken Little", running around saying that
"the sky is falling" when you still haven't taken the time to inform
yourself by looking at GM's actual financial results! Go learn the truth
James, then we can discuss these matters on a level playing field. Right
now you're just making a fool of yourself because you're so far off-base
with your financial comments. And that's what this discussion is all about
James - GM's financial position. And when your whole position is based on
an incredibly faulty knowlege of GM's financial position, it follows that
your resultant comments are laughable at best and defamatory/libelous at
worst. ;-)
Ooops! Sorry about that StingRay! *lol* I doubt that James Reeves will |
respond to my post, just as he didn't respond to yours. It would be hard
for him to defend his financial figures, since they are just plain
wrong! Ha, Ha! His whole discussion was based on his screwed-up figures.
No wonder he was so far off base. Maybe the reason he hasn't responded
yet is because he has taken GM's SEC filings to his financial advisors
for review! *lol* If we wait for James to review and understand GM's
numbers, we will be well into 2010 before we hear from him on this topic
again!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muhammed Mustafo Goldstei
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:16 am Post subject:
Re: GM should give a 10 year/100,000 mile powertrain warrant |
|
|
"Dad" <knockers@fisher.net> wrote in message
news:bPKdnYy1Ycm-Tg7eRVn-uQ@rogers.com...
| Quote: | John Horner wrote:
Dad wrote:
John Horner wrote:
snip
If GM were serious about treating customers right it would start
with a 10 year/100,000 mile powertrain warranty. Why doesn't GM
do this? If their stuff is good, then a vehicle maintained
by-the-book should not have any powertrain failures in 100,000
miles. This should also be made retroactive to all GM vehicles
sold in the past 9 years.
John, you are such a doorknob! Why not a 20 year/200,000 mile
powertrain warranty? If their stuff is good, then using your logic,
a vehicle maintained by-the-book should not have any powertrain
failures in 200,000 miles. Where does one draw the line of
practicality? John, the answer to this question is held in
assessing the odds of component failure. i.e. the longer the time
period, the greater the risk of component failure. Not to mention
the impact on powertrains of the varying driving styles from
person-to-person. John, wake up and smell the burning clutch!
People who do not have good arguments always resort to insult and
other forms of personal attack. I guess that in your world GM is
doing everything right and has nothing to worry about. Enjoy your
world.
John
What a wussy copout John! If you find it insulting that I criticize your
ludicrous suggestion, you have to grow thicker skin. I find it ironic
that the lack of common sense displayed by your silly recommendation is
the same lack of common sense that got GM into trouble in the first
place! How's that for irony?
In my world, GM is indeed doing a lot of things right. The recent
U.S./Canada announcement was a major step for them. Only time will tell
the full story. As someone said in an earlier post, GM still has the
financial wherewithall to get through these tough times, now that major
cost-cutting plans are in place and being executed. For my money, the GM
execs are a lot brighter than you and Mr. Reeves. They have gotten
through tough times before and GM will surely be in business when you
and I are long gone! It's too easy to use that tired excuse "It's
management's fault that the company has problems." That's another wussy
copout John. You could say that every time a company fails. With a
major, complex entity like GM, there are far too many influencing
factors to pin the sole blame on management. Management don't have
reliable crystal balls John that tell them just how effectively foreign
competition is going to impact them. Nor can they forcast how many
short-sighted Americans are going to buy imported cars for the
short-term financial gain. Many detrimental factors are well beyond
management control John. Open your eyes and mind John. There is none so
blind as he who will not see
|
I think you owe John a big apology, cuz where I come from calling someone a
Doorknob is the worst thing one man can do to another. Being called a
doorknob is a low blow and can be very very hurtful to others. I was always
taught growing up to never use the "D" word in a mean and hurtful way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C. Reeves
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:16 am Post subject:
Re: GM should give a 10 year/100,000 mile powertrain warrant |
|
|
"Dad" <knockers@fisher.net> wrote in message
news:tNSdndGkBLOuNAreRVn-tQ@rogers.com...
| Quote: | James C. Reeves wrote:
"Dad" <knockers@fisher.net> wrote in message
news:bPKdnYy1Ycm-Tg7eRVn-uQ@rogers.com...
Another wussy copout! I find it extremely interesting that you "what basis
of statistical/research" I base my opinions, when you clearly continue to
advocate that we "study" the matter! *lol
|
Why not determine if the Ops idea has merit? One can't know until the cost
to implement it is researched. If the cost is within reason, then it would
make a heck of a lot of sense to offer the longer warranty to help sell a
few more cars. If not, then it wouldn't. If you have hard data that
suggests that increasing the warranty wouldn't be worth it (with certanty),
it would be worth sharing here for the rest of us to consider (or
reconsider) the idea.
| Quote: | And we are all with you in the hopes that you are right, I'm sure.
However, that "announcement" only addresses the "cost" side of the
balance sheet. They still need to address the declining "revenue" side of
the balance sheet.
James, there you go talking about something you have little knowledge of!
Did you not look at the link that Stingray provided to GM's SEC filings?
For the 9 months ended Sept.30/05, Revenue held up pretty well year over
year. Consolidated Revenue for 2005 was $141,424M (Million) vs. $141,983M
in 2004. That's a decrease year to year of only $ 559M or 3.9/1000 of 1 %
James! Does that sound earth shattering to you and your financial
advisors?
|
Look closer. It all came from the financial arm. The revenue numbers from
the car piece of the business contracted. (we are talking about cars and
selling more cars, right?). Fortunately the financial arm picked up the
slack of the declining automotive arm.
GM's bonds aren't rated "junk" for nothing, by the way. That doesn't occur
unless there is signficant risk that GM will default on them.
I've asked StingRay to repost the link. For some reason my newsreader
service didn't pick up his post.
| Quote: |
For my money, the GM execs are a lot brighter than you and Mr. Reeves.
That certaintly could be the case. Perhaps it is likely the case
LMAO!!! James, don't fool yourself! It is definitely the case!
|
I'm not argueing. You mentioned IQ before. If theirs is over 115, then
you're right. If not, then you're wrong. Since you apparently know the IQ
score of each of us, made teh comparison and that information is important
to you somehow, then I will defer to your wisdom on the question. Frankly
though it matters not to the discussion one way or theother. Neither do I
care. There are smarter people than me. There are smarter people than you.
So what? In any event, this isn't irrelivant to the warranty idea
discussion either.
| Quote: | (I don't know Mr. Horner). However that isn't relivant and isn't the
point. Those execs you speak of have racked up $278 billion (yes
billion!) in debt on top of a "profit" of negative $6 billion a year with
just a little over 18-20 billion in cash. Do you have any idea how much
money it takes to service the interest on a debt of $278 billion?
Basically they have 2-3 years on the outside to make something drastic
happen. With their corporate bond rating of "junk", the cost of money for
GM is very high compared to their competitors. Another competitive
disadvantage to add to the list.
James, let it be clear that GM borrows money a lot cheaper than you!
|
True or not, it's irrellivant since GM is not competing with me. Those that
they *are* competing with (except Ford) have bond ratings that alows them to
get cheaper money than GM can get. It's just a fact. Nothing to argue
about. This is also largely irrellivant to the merits of the warranty
topic, EXCEPT if using the deferred cost nature of term warranty (compared
to the *up front cost" of "fire sales") and if that would ultimately lead to
defered borrowing, then this would be germane.
| Quote: | You continue to use erroneous financial figures, which Stingray already
took you to task on, in his response to your post of November 29th under
the subject entitled "GM Hedge Funds". Stingray proved that all your
numbers were wrong James! Let me repost his message for you, a message
incidentally that you failed to respond to! Please read it this time! Here
it is:
_____________________________________________________________________________
"StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
news:jridndPmOOUtkxDeRVn-pQ
"James C. Reeves" <jcnospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:NPidnbjATYWtZRHenZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Must be since most of the financial guys that study the books of
companies
are quite worried. Probably more a denial thing, actually. GM isn't
beyond hope. All they need to do is figure out how to pay off ~278
billion dollars in debt with the ~18 billion dollars they have in the
bank
while loosing an additional 6 billion dollars a year. Should be a piece
of cake! ;-)
James, I am a "financial guy" and I'm puzzled by your debt figure, as well
as your 18 billion dollar figure. I just visited GM's site and pulled off
their SEC Filings. If you'd like to see them, they are at this address:
http://www.gm.com/company/investor_information/sec/
You will note therein that GM had "Total Debt" of $ 446 Billion at that
time. But the most important figure is the company's "Current Debt",
which was recorded at $ 74.7Billion. Now if you take a look at the Assets,
you will see "Current Assets" of $ 53.8Billion. To this, you have to add
the Current Assets of Financing and Insurance Operations, which look like
this:
Cash & Cash Equivalents $ 21.4Billion
Investments in Securities 16.5Billion
Finance Receivables - Net 177.0Billion
Loans Held For Sale 17.6Billion
Assets Held For Sale 18.7Billion
-------------------
Current Assets of $ 251.2Billion
Financing & Ins. Ops.
Now James, if we add this figure to the $ 53.8Billion figure above, we
find that as at September 30, 2005, GM had Total Current Assets of
$ 305Billion, which would quite easily handle their Current Debt, which
was $ 74.7 Billion. I fail to see the liquidity crisis you seem to allude
to. Even if GM had a temporary liquidity problem at some point, they could
raise Billions of dollars quite quickly by leveraging up some of their
Fixed Assets, which I'm sure would have substantial value over Book Value.
So let's not get out the shovels to bury GM just yet. Her demise is highly
exaggerated and the funeral wake is premature.
__________________________________________________________________________
James, you continue to use those financial numbers that you apparently
dreamed up. As Stingray pointed out, you are way off=base!
|
Yes they have some leverage options that will get them through 2-3 years or
so (all things remaining equal). I believe I already stated that. You'll
note that they have "$21.4 billion" in "cash and cash equillivants" (close
to my 18-20 "in the bank" statement). Interesting that one would choose to
use "current debt" over "total debt" and then do the oposite for assets and
use "total assets" instead of assets "currently available". Yes they can
leverage those fixed assets, but then "total debt" raises further. Why
don't we either look at apples-to-apples or oranges-to-oranges?
| Quote: | I sure hope so, for my grandkids sake! There are some very respectable
financial people that don't seem as sure as you do.
Respected by whom James? You and John Horner? Name one well-known
respected financial person James. Or did you simply jump on the bandwagon
of the uninformed? Oh right, that's exactly what you did, as demonstrated
by your incredibly uninformed figures for debt and bank balance! *lol*
|
One source,
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=GM
Similar numbers have also been quoted on the cable financial channels when
GM comes up for discussion and in some articles I've read these past few
months.
| Quote: | Also remember the common investment advise! Performance history does not
predict future performance. In other words, what transpired before had
no relivance to what will transpire in the future. The fact that GM
recovered before means nothing to the current situation. Each situation
is different.
Ah, you're finally catching on!
|
I'm glad we agree on something. :-)
| Quote: | It's too easy to use that tired excuse "It's management's fault that the
company has problems."
Who's fault is it?
Yours for buying imports!
|
Nope, not me. Never have bought an "import". Neither has the wife or kids.
| Quote: | Unions for negotiating too well!
|
And management was asleep, apparently.
| Quote: | The U.S. government for not ensuring a level playing field before allowing
a major influx of imports!
|
Curious as to what isn't level about the playing field. Can you elaborate?
I'd like to know your thoughts. Honest. ;-) But let's start a new thread
on that topic.
| Quote: | GM management in some cases!
|
Yep. And in the rest of the cases too.
| Quote: | GM employees who drive imports to work every day!
|
That's actually a bit surprising. One would think the employees would have
confidence in their own product. Does this really happen? If so, sad as
hell! The other problem with that situation is that it tells everyone else
that the people building the cars don't have faith in them. True or not,
that will be the perception for some people that know this is occuring.
| Quote: | People like you who seemingly "make up" completely false financial numbers
and then publish them! (By the way, where did you get those numbers?)
|
One place is here (also similar numbers using Ameritrade Apex tools)
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=GM
Look for the section "Balance Sheet". In fact, this link shows the cash is
now down to $15.1 billion from $18-$20 billion when I looked last (about 2-3
months ago).
| Quote: | You are too thick to be believed James! There are so many forms of risk
that effect a company like GM James. Do you know what "sovereign risk" is
James? It's a major factor for GM. Look it up! Do you know what "currency
risk" is James? It's another major factor for GM. Look it up James! Both
of these are risks beyond the ability of GM to control directly, although
they can do some currency hedges (risky business in itself) to mitigate
currency risk. There are literally hundreds of risks beyond the direct
control of management in a mutinational company.
|
And it's management's job to know what s happening ad adjust for the
changing climate of the business. There really is no one else responsible
for it. Those things you mention can be a contributing factor to the causes
of failure, but they are not the blame for the failure. The fault (blame)
rests with those that run the business and who didn't make the correct
mitigating decisions/actions to compensate for them.
| Quote: | Management don't have reliable crystal balls John that tell them just how
effectively foreign competition is going to impact them.
No, but they have (or should have) technology like data warehouse systems
and management reports that would tell them exactly these things. It
isn't ricket science. If they don't have those tools, its their fault
they don't (again).
Well, it may not be "ricket science" but it's obviously beyond your
comprehension! That previous paragraph was complete gobbledygook James. It
makes no sense whatsoever!
|
I'm very familiar with data warehouse (DW) systems and the management
reports that *can* come out of them (if they are managed properly) . DW
systems aggregate data from many sources into meaningful and actionable
information. One common example in the data warehouse business is how a DW
system made it obvious to the executives at 7-11 over 15 years ago that if
they just put the diapers next to the beer they'll sell more diapers. It
worked!
I'm guessing you aren't familiar with data warehouses. Sometimes called
"knowledgebases". With the right data feeds/aggregation and reports,
they're better than crystal balls. In fact, this could be one tool that
could be used to determing the cost/expense curve for the inceased warranty
idea.
| Quote: | So, instead of doing some research and running some numbers to see for
sure if looking into an idea like this might help to increase sales,
management should just poo-poo it out-of-hand like you are and sit back
and do nothing else except close plants and fire people? I'm not buying
your version of a plan "dad". Remember, the revenue side of the balance
sheet needs help and needs it badly.
You have just proven once again that you ignored Stingray's response to
your post. He did the real research James. You're just blowing smoke. I
challenge you to respond to Stingray. ;-)
|
Uh, my response was to the topic in the subject heading...to studying if the
warranty idea has merit. And if so, what level of warranty could be
extended before it produced an unacceptable diminishing return. I honestly
belive (yet to be verified, thus a research needed), that GM makes good
enough cars that a 5 or 6 year 60 month warranty would cost them very little
and may boost sales by a good margin. That would be a good thing, right?
| Quote: | Now, I'll ask again. What alternative ideas do you have that might
increase sales?
Revenue looks pretty good year to year James. You'd better look at the
real numbers at http://www.gm.com/company/investor_information/sec/ What
numbers are you looking at? Ha, Ha!
|
Since the subject heading/topic is about warranty associated with the car
business, then separate out the other revenue sources and look at only the
revenue numbers from the automotive piece of the business. Come back and
let us know what the revenue trend is for the automotive piece. As a bonus,
provide the market share numbers for the last 5 years and chart that trend
as well. Then come back with a straight face and say that what you saw was
good.
| Quote: | o John has put forth the idea to look at increasing
warranty coverage.
o I say turn the damn annoying daytime lights off if a
customer wants them off (among other things)
o What do you say?
I say that you sound like "Chicken Little", running around saying that
"the sky is falling" when you still haven't taken the time to inform
yourself by looking at GM's actual financial results! Go learn the truth
James, then we can discuss these matters on a level playing field. Right
now you're just making a fool of yourself because you're so far off-base
with your financial comments. And that's what this discussion is all about
James - GM's financial position. And when your whole position is based on
an incredibly faulty knowlege of GM's financial position, it follows that
your resultant comments are laughable at best and defamatory/libelous at
worst. ;-)
|
I noticed you still didn't answer the question. Do you want to contribute
to some ideas that might increase sales and regain some market share? Still
haven't heard any. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C. Reeves
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:16 am Post subject:
Re: GM should give a 10 year/100,000 mile powertrain warrant |
|
|
"StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
news:n9mdnRqYPOKWLwrenZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@rogers.com...
| Quote: | Dad, pardon my top posting here, but your exchange with James is pretty
lengthy. You've brought up some good points and I would have to agree with
you that James never read my post of November 29th. I'm glad to hear that
someone did! *lol* I must confess that I was disappointed that James
never responded to my message but I mistakenly thought that he had
probably read it but didn't want to embarrass himself by responding.
Clearly this is not the case. If he did read it, he must not have
understood it. I hope he accepts your invitation to respond. By the way,
it's StingRay, not Stingray. It's a long story but the early Corvette
Sting Ray was two words. No big deal!
|
My MS newsreader didn't pick up tour post. Can you repost? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
StingRay
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 11, 2005 4:03 am Post subject:
Re: GM should give a 10 year/100,000 mile powertrain warrant |
|
|
James, in the interests of brevity, I will respond to those portions of your
post which appear to be in response to my comments and I will snip "Dad's"
comments and your responses thereto. Before proceeding, I would offer you
two pieces of advice.
1)
When entering into discussions on various topics, it is always adviseable to
stick to topics on which you are knowledgeable and/or well informed. Finance
is clearly not your one of your strengths James and it can be frustrating
for someone with financial acumen to try to educate someone without
financial expertise, all within the boundaries of one or two posts within a
News Group. To demonstrate your apparent lack of financial knowledge, in an
earlier post, you comment: " However, that "announcement" only addresses the
"cost" side of the balance sheet. They still need to address the declining
"revenue" side of the balance sheet." James, to anyone with financial
expertise, those comments are like dragging your nails over a chalk board.
This is because neither "cost" nor "revenue" are Balance Sheet items.
Balance Sheet items are Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth components. "Cost"
and "revenue" are Income Statement items. I would discourage you from
engaging in financial conversations in the future. Stick to what you know
and understand.
2)
The term "brighter" is not limited to IQ alone. It also encompasses common
sense and good listening skills. It is quite possible to possess a very high
IQ, but very little common sense and poor listening skills. Such a person
would not be considered bright, by any stretch of the imagination. While in
University, I was encouraged by several educators to join a large Mensa
organization. I attended two meetings but was appalled by the lack of common
sense demonstrated by many of the group's members. I discontinued attending
Mensa after two very frustrating sessions, during which everyone wanted to
speak, but no-one wanted to listen.
On that note, I will proceed through this hodge podge of posts.
"James C. Reeves" <jcnospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:TvWdnYAIk-1x9gfeRVn-vw@comcast.com...
| Quote: | James, there you go talking about something you have little knowledge of!
Did you not look at the link that Stingray provided to GM's SEC filings?
For the 9 months ended Sept.30/05, Revenue held up pretty well year over
year. Consolidated Revenue for 2005 was $141,424M (Million) vs. $141,983M
in 2004. That's a decrease year to year of only $ 559M or 3.9/1000 of 1 %
James! Does that sound earth shattering to you and your financial
advisors?
Look closer. It all came from the financial arm.
|
James, that is an error in fact. You seem to be confusing revenue with
profitability. As stated above, GM had consolidated revenue of $ 141,424M
(Million) for the 9 months ended September 30th, 2005. Of that revenue,
$ 115,844M came from the automotive side. James that means 81.9% of revenue
came from the automotive side. So you are wildly off-base when you say "It
all came from the financial arm."
| Quote: | The revenue numbers from
the car piece of the business contracted. (we are talking about cars and
selling more cars, right?).
|
Automotive revenue for the 9 months ended September 30th, 2005 was $
115,844, down $ 2,560M or 2.16% from the prior year figure of $ 118,404M.
James, a 2.16% fluctation year-to-year in revenue is infinitesimal in any
major corporation. But don't believe me - run through the Fortune 500
companies and see for yourself.
| Quote: | Fortunately the financial arm picked up the
slack of the declining automotive arm.
|
Revenue for the financial arm was up $ 2,001M or 8.48%. Again, not a major
fluctuation, but a nice one.
| Quote: |
GM's bonds aren't rated "junk" for nothing, by the way. That doesn't
occur
unless there is signficant risk that GM will default on them.
|
James, many major companies have been rated "junk bond" status at various
points in their history. The term sounds much nastier than it really is.
Certainly, any downgrading in bond ratings suggest that there is an
increased risk of default, but often the degrees of risk from category to
category isn't that great. GM is still a much wooed company by the major
financial houses in the world. And their borrowing costs are much lower than
the average consumer. Certainly less that "prime rate".
| Quote: | True or not, it's irrellivant since GM is not competing with me. Those
that
they *are* competing with (except Ford) have bond ratings that alows them
to
get cheaper money than GM can get. It's just a fact. Nothing to argue
about.
|
Wrong again James.Lots to argue about. Go check the "commercial paper"
market with your favorite broker and you will be surprised at what you find.
While you're there, find out how GM is faring in the Corporate Bond market.
Check the yields for all the major issuers. Again you will obviously be
surprised by GM's low cost of borrowing.
| Quote: | You continue to use erroneous financial figures, which Stingray already
took you to task on, in his response to your post of November 29th under
the subject entitled "GM Hedge Funds". Stingray proved that all your
numbers were wrong James! Let me repost his message for you, a message
incidentally that you failed to respond to! Please read it this time!
Here
it is:
_____________________________________________________________________________
"StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
news:jridndPmOOUtkxDeRVn-pQ
"James C. Reeves" <jcnospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:NPidnbjATYWtZRHenZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Must be since most of the financial guys that study the books of
companies
are quite worried. Probably more a denial thing, actually. GM isn't
beyond hope. All they need to do is figure out how to pay off ~278
billion dollars in debt with the ~18 billion dollars they have in the
bank
while loosing an additional 6 billion dollars a year. Should be a
piece
of cake! ;-)
James, I am a "financial guy" and I'm puzzled by your debt figure, as
well
as your 18 billion dollar figure. I just visited GM's site and pulled off
their SEC Filings. If you'd like to see them, they are at this address:
http://www.gm.com/company/investor_information/sec/
You will note therein that GM had "Total Debt" of $ 446 Billion at that
time. But the most important figure is the company's "Current Debt",
which was recorded at $ 74.7Billion. Now if you take a look at the
Assets,
you will see "Current Assets" of $ 53.8Billion. To this, you have to
add
the Current Assets of Financing and Insurance Operations, which look like
this:
Cash & Cash Equivalents $ 21.4Billion
Investments in Securities 16.5Billion
Finance Receivables - Net 177.0Billion
Loans Held For Sale 17.6Billion
Assets Held For Sale 18.7Billion
-------------------
Current Assets of $ 251.2Billion
Financing & Ins. Ops.
Now James, if we add this figure to the $ 53.8Billion figure above, we
find that as at September 30, 2005, GM had Total Current Assets of
$ 305Billion, which would quite easily handle their Current Debt, which
was $ 74.7 Billion. I fail to see the liquidity crisis you seem to allude
to. Even if GM had a temporary liquidity problem at some point, they
could
raise Billions of dollars quite quickly by leveraging up some of their
Fixed Assets, which I'm sure would have substantial value over Book
Value.
So let's not get out the shovels to bury GM just yet. Her demise is
highly
exaggerated and the funeral wake is premature.
__________________________________________________________________________
James, you continue to use those financial numbers that you apparently
dreamed up. As Stingray pointed out, you are way off=base!
Yes they have some leverage options that will get them through 2-3 years
or
so (all things remaining equal). I believe I already stated that. You'll
note that they have "$21.4 billion" in "cash and cash equillivants" (close
to my 18-20 "in the bank" statement).
|
Close but no cigar James! First of all, your figure was not 18-20. It was
~18. A variance of $ 3.4Billion is a 21.4% variance!!! That's a heck of lot
more of a variance than any of GM's year-over-year revenue variances! Having
said this, it is a moot point because the figure of $ 21.4Billion that you
quote for "Cash & Cash Equivalents" is the figure for GMAC & affiliates, not
for the automotive side! I will elaborate further on this "Cash" issue in
the next response hereunder.
| Quote: | Interesting that one would choose to
use "current debt" over "total debt" and then do the oposite for assets
and
use "total assets" instead of assets "currently available". Yes they can
leverage those fixed assets, but then "total debt" raises further. Why
don't we either look at apples-to-apples or oranges-to-oranges?
|
James, it is only "interesting" to a non-financially astute person such as
yourself. I didn't "choose to
use "current debt" over "total debt" and then do the oposite for assets and
use "total assets" instead of assets "currently available"".
Firstly, I posted the "Total Consolidated Debt" figure of $ 446 Billion,
just to show you that your figure of "~278 billion dollars in debt " was
way off-base! Where did you get that figure James? I'm not at all clear why
you have such a fixation on "Total Debt" though James. From a "Balance
Sheet" perspective, "Total Debt" plus "Shareholder Equity" always equals
"Current Assets" plus "Non-Current/Fixed Assets". It's a very simple
formula. No mystery here. The relationship between Current Assets and
Current Liabilities is far more information.
Secondly James, you are just plain wrong when you say that I "use(d) "total
assets" instead of assets "currently available"". " I at no point used any
figure for "total assets". All of my asset figures were very clearly
"Current Assets". I never once added in "Non-Current or Fixed Assets".
Thirdly, I focused on "Current Assets" and Current Liabilities" because that
is what financial analysts do James. A company's "Working Capital" is
determined in this manner. For your information James, Working Capital is
defined as the ability of a company's "Liquid" or "Current" assets to meet
their short term (Less than 1 year) financial obligations. It is the
lifeblood of a company. "Cash & Cash Equivalents" is only one category of
"Current Asset". The financially astute company does what GM has done and
invests surplus cash into other short term, higher yield assets such as
Investments in Securities, Finance Receivables, Loans Held For Sale and
other short term Assets Held For Sale as well as the usual operational
assets such as Accounts/Notes Receivable and Inventory. So James, Cash in
the Bank doesn't mean a lot in itself. You have to look at a company's
Current Assets in their entirety to know their ability to handle their
Current Liability commitments coming due or payable within the next
12months. And in this regard, GM has strong Working Capital at September 30,
2005 with Total Current Assets of $ 305Billion, which would quite easily
handle their Current Debt, which was $ 74.7 Billion. This leaves them with a
Working Capital Surplus of $ 240.3Billion. There's nothing to be alarmed
about here James!
| Quote: | Respected by whom James? You and John Horner? Name one well-known
respected financial person James. Or did you simply jump on the bandwagon
of the uninformed? Oh right, that's exactly what you did, as demonstrated
by your incredibly uninformed figures for debt and bank balance! *lol*
One source,
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=GM
|
James, the link that you provided is to a Yahoo Financial page and it is
typical of the type of information available on any financial site. As it
happens, I use Yahoo as my Home Page and often use their financial data.
Yahoo provides select ratios and market performance over the past year. This
is good information if you're considering buying or selling GM stock, but
from an informational perspective, I find the company's actual SEC filings
far more useful. When I'm thinking of buying any particular stock, I prefer
crunching my own ratios because these financial pages do make mistakes. A
good example of this is the Figure Yahoo shows for "Total Debt". You
mistakenly assumed that their figure of $ 278.23B was correct. But had you
clicked on "Balance Sheet" at the bottom of the page, you would have seen
that their "Total Debt" was $ 446.7Billion, as I stated above. That's why I
prefer crunching my own numbers and ratios from SEC filings James. ;-)
| Quote: | Similar numbers have also been quoted on the cable financial channels when
GM comes up for discussion and in some articles I've read these past few
months.
|
James, you have to understand that many cable financial channels employ
messengers (reporters) who merely read the script in front of them. Very few
do their own analysis. So when they receive "junk in", it results in "junk
out". I often find myself laughing at these messengers. One of their most
frequent Faux-pas' is comparing results over the same period a year earlier.
I can't count the times that I've heard a reporter say "Profits for the 3rd
quarter were up a whopping 230% over a year earlier." What they don't take
the time to investigate is whether profits a year earlier were awful for
some reason. If for example a company wrote down an unusually large amount
of capitalized R&D or any other Asset for that matter, the comment that
"Profits for the 3rd quarter were up a whopping 230% over a year earlier."
is very misleading. In fact, excluding the "one-time" writedown, profits may
have been down. So James, my advice here is simply to not believe everything
you read on Yahoo Financial.
| Quote: |
That's actually a bit surprising. One would think the employees would
have
confidence in their own product. Does this really happen? If so, sad as
hell! The other problem with that situation is that it tells everyone
else
that the people building the cars don't have faith in them. True or not,
that will be the perception for some people that know this is occuring.
|
James, your comments weren't in response to my post, but I will respond that
a lady who works at a GM plant in Oshawa, Canada confirmed this. From her
comments though, I don't think it's that they lack confidence in their own
product. It's more that they are simply short sighted and are often driven
solely by price.
| Quote: | Look for the section "Balance Sheet". In fact, this link shows the cash
is
now down to $15.1 billion from $18-$20 billion when I looked last (about
2-3
months ago).
|
James, you make me laugh with this one! As an analyst, it is an "extremely
good thing" that cash is down! Any company. large or small, should strive to
completely eliminate "Cash" from their Balance Sheet. Cash is a non-revenue
producing asset. Cash should be investing in some short term investment as
quickly as possible. Unfortunately, that is nigh unimpossible with a large
company, who on any given day have tens of millions of dollars flowing in
and can quite easily end any given day with millions sitting in the account
gathering dust, but no interest income! When Yahoo Finance or any other
financial site shows you a figure for "Cash", you should always look for a
downward trend or at the very least, the absence of an upward trend. The
only reason financial sites show numbers for "Cash" is so you can gage how
well a company invests their cash into higher return Current Assets.
Now the really bad news James, the figure of $ 15.3Billion that Yahoo uses
for "Cash" is wrong. Again, if you go to the bottom of their page and click
on "Balance Sheet", you'll see that GM's actual Cash figure was a shade
over
$ 35Billion. Another reason to use any company's SEC filings.
| Quote: | And it's management's job to know what s happening ad adjust for the
changing climate of the business. There really is no one else responsible
for it. Those things you mention can be a contributing factor to the
causes
of failure, but they are not the blame for the failure. The fault (blame)
rests with those that run the business and who didn't make the correct
mitigating decisions/actions to compensate for them.
|
This wasn't my topic James, but I do have an opinion on it. Bear with me
here. As mentioned, I do have a financial background. Dad brought up a very
good topic of discussion when he mentioned political risk. Major banks and
governments often lend massive amounts of money to both industrialized and
developing nations. These loans can default for reasons beyond the ability
of the lenders to reasonably anticipate in time to recover their funds. For
example, the risk to lending money in Iraq increased sharply when the U.S.
moved in. And the prospects of recovery of pre-existing loans dropped
drastically and certainly before the lenders (including the U.S. government)
could react.
Similarly, companies like GM make massive investments of capital in foreign
countries. Using hypothetical situations, I would like to suggest scenarios
where GM management might have little control or warning of increased
political risk. Civil war in Mexico would have a drastic effect on U.S.
interests in that country. Can you blame that on GM management? When they
invested in Mexico, they would, of necessity, have looked at political risk,
but political risk can change quickly and you certainly can't repatriate
major capital investments on short notice! Another example that we have seen
recently are acts of God. Can you blame management for losses attributable
to acts of God? What about 911? Are the Trade Center owners responsible for
the losses they incurred? Was that poor management?
So it is grossly unfair to label management of any company as responsible
for everything that happens to a company.
| Quote: |
I'm very familiar with data warehouse (DW) systems and the management
reports that *can* come out |
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in