The Big 3 - Bail out or Bust

One Mans View on Chryser's bankruptcy, interesting comments also.

Chrysler's Bankruptcy: Historic Changes for Markets?

After reading numerous comments on Chrysler’s filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, it’s clear that lawyers, investors and bond buyers are very worried about how the president is blaming and bullying Chrysler’s creditors for the company’s bankruptcy.

The consensus of all but the pro-union and pro-Obama types is that the president’s disrespect for 200 years of bankruptcy law precedent will make it very difficult for companies to sell bonds and borrow money in the private markets. The president is in the process of destroying the credibility of borrowers and the trust that has made our corporate debt markets work for generations.

Unionized corporations will find it will be especially difficult and expensive to borrow from banks and bond buyers. This is because the unions have so much political clout with Obama and Congress that a lender can never count on the contracts that they write with borrowers being enforced. The Democrats seem bent on rewriting the laws in the favor of unions and at the expense of lenders.

If this nonsense continues, the Rust Belt’s manufacturers are in big trouble. Most depend on selling billions in bonds to the private markets, and they work hard to maintain reasonably good credit ratings to keep their borrowing costs under control.

.........

http://seekingalpha.com/article/134...tcy-historic-changes-for-markets?source=yahoo

Because I feel that failure should not be rewarded, although Rahim Emmanual has been quoted on CNBC commercials, promoting his upcoming interview, that the American People better get used to the Feds rewarding Failure, (yes he said that, I rewound it 3 times to make sure)and since I've been against TARP/bailouts/welfare from the beginning, I am curious, since that horse has already left the barn, does this guy or the following comments have any validity? I know the road to hell is paved with good intentions, are we headed that way with this bankrupcty and the conclusions he draws or is what he is saying an impossibility?

If companies were to big to fail, why didn't we break them up like Ma Bell and Standard oil?

Curious minds want to know.

CB
 
28,659 more workers thrown out of work as of today:

murderbymoney.jpg



"A group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout ... They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices and they would have to make none."
– President Obama on who caused Chrysler bankruptcy

Obama Aims At Hedge Funds Amid Chrysler Bankruptcy
By Joseph Checkler
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--President Barack Obama's scolding of hedge funds sparked an immediate backlash from fund managers who resent what they see as an increasingly heavy-handed approach from Washington.

Obama, during remarks about Chrysler LLC's bankruptcy filing, said a group of investment firms and hedge funds held out for "an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout," hoping they could avoid the sacrifices that other stakeholders had made. "I don't stand with those who held out when everybody else is making sacrifices," he said.

The comments, which came after an unnamed administration official went so far as to say the holdouts weren't acting in the national interest, overshadowed some of the details of the historic Chapter 11 filing and news of Chrysler's alliance with Fiat SpA (FIATY). The fact that Obama expressed his displeasure more than once during his remarks seemed to indicate he was picking a fight with hedge funds, and it didn't play well with many on Wall Street.

"So what?" said Phil Goldstein, who runs Bulldog Investors, referring to the decision by some funds to hold out. "Aren't you entitled to reject a deal?" said Goldstein, who has railed against hedge-fund regulation in the past.
Henry Bregstein, who is co-managing partner at law firm Katten Muchin Rosenman and who represents hedge funds, said it is possible that accepting the government's offer could have theoretically exposed the funds that Obama criticized to lawsuits from investors.

"The managers of those investment firms and hedge funds have fiduciary responsibilities to their investors," Bregstein said.

A call to the White House press office seeking comment on whether Obama was criticizing hedge funds to send a message beyond the Chrysler negotiations wasn't immediately returned.

In speaking specifically about Chrysler, Obama was singling out three institutions - hedge-fund managers Perella Weinberg Partners LP and Stairway Capital Advisors LLC, and mutual-fund operator Oppenheimer Funds - which were the only firms publicly known to have been part of the group that rejected the Treasury Department's $2 billion debt-reduction deal. Perella Weinberg broke from the group Thursday, issuing a press release saying it has accepted the offer.

Stairway didn't immediately return a call seeking comment. The group of 20 creditors, calling themselves the "non-TARP Chrysler lenders," told their side of the story in a press release. The group refers to itself as non-TARP to distinguish it from the large banks that have received government bailout funds and that agreed to the Chrysler debt restructuring terms.

The group said it offered to take a 40% haircut on its investment, even though some groups down the legal priority chain were "being given recoveries of up to 50% or more and being allowed to take out billions of dollars." The group said its proposals were rejected or ignored.

"The government has risked overturning the rule of law and practices that have governed our world-leading bankruptcy code for decades," the statement said. The group said it has a fiduciary obligation to its investors, naming specifically "many of the country's teachers unions, major pension and retirement plans and school endowments" that invest with those creditors. The group invested in $1 billion worth of Chrysler loans.

Oppenheimer put out a statement echoing many of the same things said by the group.

Other hedge-fund companies owning Chrysler loans, including Elliott Management Corp., took the government's deal.

A person at a hedge-fund firm that owns Chrysler loans, speaking anonymously, told Dow Jones Newswires that the difference between what loanholders would get in bankruptcy and out of bankruptcy wasn't that much, meaning the non-TARP lenders are making a political statement more than anything.

"Are they taking reputational risk for pennies?" asked the person. "Do the math on the recovery levels. It doesn't make sense for them to have held out for purely economic value."
​



​
 
UAW's concessions at Chrysler were ratified the day before yesterday- and included $7 an hour pay cut, changes to work rules, layoff of over 3/4's of members who were working in 2001, and reduction in health care plan for retirees.

When it is over, Chrysler retains 1/4th of the number of workers it had in 2000.

And senior citizen retirees lose cash for both retirement pension and health care. They retain some of it, IF the bankruptcy judge agrees, and some if it will be new stock issued, making UAW Retiree Trust Fund the largest single owner of the company- as it will be given stock in exchange for the Union giving up it's claim to the cash owed by the company to the pension and health funds.

From the UAW website today:

----------------------------------------------------
For Release: Thursday, April 30, 2009
UAW to present ratified agreements to Bankruptcy Court

DETROIT - The UAW will join with the U.S. government, Chrysler and Fiat in urging the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to give immediate approval to labor agreements ratified by UAW members, UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said today.

President Obama today announced continued government support for Chrysler as it continues its restructuring process.

“UAW Vice President General Holiefield and I spoke with President Obama this morning, and he asked us to let our active and retired members at Chrysler know how much he appreciates the substantial sacrifices they have made to help save this company,” said UAW President Ron Gettelfinger. “The president’s goal is clear: to assure the long term future of Chrysler.”

The next step in that process will be the filing of a petition for relief under
Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.

The first order of business in the bankruptcy proceedings will be to seek court approval of the agreements recently reached between the UAW, the U.S. Treasury, Chrysler and Fiat. Motions seeking that approval will be filed immediately.

“We will urge the court to act swiftly,” said Gettelfinger. The agreements incorporate the modifications to the UAW collective bargaining agreement and retiree health agreement that were ratified by the UAW’s membership in voting that concluded yesterday.

Chrysler, the U.S. Treasury Department and Fiat all remain in full support of these UAW agreements and will join in urging the Bankruptcy Court to give them immediate approval. At the same time, the parties will be urging the Bankruptcy Court to give immediate approval to the terms of the Chrysler/Fiat alliance.

Under the UAW agreements, the pension plan covering UAW-represented employees and retirees will continue in effect without change. The agreements also include the previously announced changes to the retiree medical program, including 55 percent ownership of the restructured company by the retiree benefits trust fund.

“The UAW agreements have been ratified by our membership and approved by the United States Treasury, Chrysler and Fiat,” said Gettelfinger. “We believe it is in the best interests of all concerned for the Bankruptcy Court to give those agreements swift and complete approval. We look forward to presenting those agreements to the court.”

“The UAW membership at Chrysler, both active and retired, has once again demonstrated its strength and steadfastness in the face of great uncertainty,” said UAW Vice President General Holiefield, who directs the union’s Chrysler Department. “While we work to complete the process of court approval, the steps taken today are important milestones in restoring a great American car company to financial health, keeping manufacturing jobs here in the United States, and preserving a secure retirement for tens of thousands of American workers.”
 
Probably call it AutoVAZ-Amerika or something like that.

I am having a hard time feeling any sympathy for GM or the UAW on this issue since I don't see how they can justify the crap they built in the 80s and the don't care attitude toward the consumer. Or how they are operating on their seemingly profit for all of us basis. A little prudence in the past would have given them a nest egg to fall back on in hard times. Seems like everyone involved only wanted to get theirs now.

My wife and I have bought only american made vehicles most of our lives and suffered through what in several cases have been real pieces of s**t. GM vehicles are better now than ever but the managment and workers screwed themselves through the reputation they have from what they built in the past and the lack of customer service and willingness to fix anything. (they all do that, it's normal)

If I ran my financials the way GM has for years...wait, I see, I'd be getting a government bail out. So I screwed myself by being prudent!
 
Will GM become 'Government Motors'?
Stephen Manning, AP Business Writer
On Wednesday April 29, 2009, 7:05 pm EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- If the government takes a majority stake in General Motors, will it end up taking the wheel, too?

Under a restructuring plan put forth this week by GM, the ailing automaker would give majority ownership to the federal government to stave off bankruptcy. That handoff would amount to an extraordinary partial nationalization of the maker of Buicks, Cadillacs and Chevys that has been an independent company since 1908.

The Obama administration has said it isn't interested in running an auto company, but with that big of a stake, some analysts say the government would probably be tempted to push its own policies on such issues as alternative fuel vehicles and unions. And that could affect the types of cars that roll off GM's assembly lines.

"The fear here is that a company owned by the government would move toward the do-good results, not the bottom line," said Gerald Meyers, a University of Michigan business professor and former CEO of American Motors Corp.

GM's proposal would give the government more than 50 percent of the automaker's stock in exchange for forgiving $10 billion in government loans. The United Auto Workers union would end up with a 39 percent stake.

The plan is far from a sure thing. Holders of GM's $27 billion in unsecured debt have dismissed it as unfair because they would lose most of their investment. And the White House repeated this week that it doesn't want to own GM or any other auto company.

But through its broad efforts to rescue the auto industry, the White House is already deeply involved in the operations of GM and Chrysler. It has sunk nearly $25 billion into the two companies and their financial arms, and is ready to give them even more if their restructuring plans are deemed workable. The Obama administration has already flexed its muscle by forcing out Rick Wagoner as GM's CEO.

GM said Monday that it would still retain day-to-day control of the company. But at the direction of the Treasury Department, GM will replace several members of its board of directors at its annual meeting in August. In most corporations, the board sets long-term policies and goals. If the handover plan goes through, at least one of those seats will probably be held by a government representative who would look out for the taxpayers' interests.

"The U.S. government as a major shareholder would probably ensure that the board is doing their role," GM chief financial officer Ray Young said in an interview this week.

Exactly what interests the government would look out for remains to be seen.

Some analysts said that with government ownership of GM, the company could be used to press issues like building more fuel-efficient vehicles and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

GM, which spent recent years selling SUVs and other gas-guzzlers, is already making a push into hybrid and electric vehicle technology and is spinning off the behemoth Hummer. But its best-selling vehicle is still the Chevy Silverado, a full-size pickup truck.

In another possible conflict of interest, the White House could find itself in the odd position of being a partner with the UAW while simultaneously sitting on the board as it negotiates contracts with the union.

"This almost by definition injects politics into the reorganization," said James Gattuso, a scholar at the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

However, Michael Ettlinger, vice president for economic policy at the Washington-based Center for American Progress, a liberal policy group, said that while the government would have an interest in protecting its investment in GM, it probably wouldn't try to dictate how the company does business or what types of vehicles it makes.

As a member of GM's board, the government would have a responsibility to the company and its shareholders to make sound business decisions, not those based on policy, Ettlinger said. "The administration's strategy to deal with our energy challenges is not to take over automobile companies and make them do things. That is a losing strategy," he said.

Meyers said the British auto industry, which went through a period of nationalization during the 1970s, holds some clues to government ownership. In that case, he said, pressure groups like unions held powerful sway through their allies in the government.

"It's a populism kind of management," he said.

As for how long Washington would stay in the auto business, Ettlinger said the government might hold a stake in GM for several years, but added: "I don't think that long-term the federal government is interested in running companies."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Will-GM-become-Government-apf-15077682.html
 
TH..who or what is CM?:confused:


AP – FILE - In this Feb. 19, 2009
DETROIT – General Motors Corp. is planning to temporarily close most of its U.S. factories for up to nine weeks this summer because of slumping sales and growing inventories of unsold vehicles, three people briefed on the plan said Wednesday. Analysts say the company could be seeing sales decline because of talk about a potential bankruptcy.

The exact dates of the closures are not known, but the people said they will occur around the normal two-week shutdown in July when changes are made from one model year to the next. None of the people wanted to be identified because workers have not yet been told of the shutdowns.

GM spokesman Chris Lee would not comment other than to say the company notifies employees before making any production cuts public.

One of the people briefed on the plan said details are still being worked out. Some of the closings could be staggered between mid-May and the end of July, but the exact number of plants to be idled has not yet been determined.

Another person said a few plants that make more popular models could remain open for part of the shutdown period, but at reduced assembly line speeds.

Thousands of workers could be laid off but would still get most of their pay because their United Auto Workers union contract requires the company to make up much of the difference between state unemployment benefits and their wages. UAW officials at several factories said they have meetings scheduled Thursday and Friday with plant managers and GM human resource officials to discuss production changes.

The shutdown could be catastrophic to many auto parts suppliers that already are near bankruptcy due to previous production cuts. During the shutdown, suppliers couldn't ship parts to GM and would lose critical revenue.

"It's one of those things we've been dreading for a long time," said Jim Gillette, director of financial services at auto-industry consultant CSM Worldwide in Grand Rapids. "It's as bad as its ever been."

He said that many suppliers are making employee cuts or forcing workers to take furloughs to reduce operating expenditures.

GM is living on $13.4 billion in government loans and faces a June 1 deadline to cut its debt, reduce labor costs and take other restructuring steps. If it doesn't meet the deadline, the company's CEO has said it will enter Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

The Treasury Department declined to comment on any effect the plant shutdowns might have on GM's restructuring plans.

Separately Wednesday, GM announced that it may miss a $1 billion bond payment also due June 1 if its debt-for-equity exchange is still in progress by then. GM also could go into bankruptcy protection, which could make the company miss the payment as well.

The company plans to make the exchange offer soon to bondholders, perhaps as early as next week. GM has $28 billion in unsecured bond debt and is under government pressure to reduce that to solidify its balance sheet.

GM's sales were down 49 percent in the first quarter compared with the same period last year, and GM had a 123-day supply of cars and trucks at the end of March, according to Ward's AutoInfoBank. That's down from 162 days worth in January.

But as of March 31, the automaker had a more than six-month supply of several models including the Pontiac G5 compact and Chevrolet Silverado hybrid pickup truck. The lengthy shutdown likely means that GM doesn't see its sales rebounding anytime soon, said Tom Libby, an independent Detroit-area auto industry analyst.

"They must be forecasting a sales level that is low enough between now and the summer that they see their inventories building," he said. "It's sort of an ominous comment on what they see for the industry."

Libby also suggested that the company's sales may be declining because customers are concerned about the automaker possibly filing for bankruptcy protection.

GM CEO Fritz Henderson has said the company would prefer to restructure outside of court, but it is preparing for a prearranged bankruptcy as well as one in which good assets would be separated from underperforming ones.

"Just using the word bankruptcy, their (market) share is down a lot just because of this talk," Libby said. "They may be counting on a further decline."

The plant closures add to the onslaught of bad news coming out of GM, said John Clark, president of Avenue Chevrolet, a dealership in Batavia, Ill., near Chicago.

"Henderson making statements about bankruptcy sure doesn't help his cause, and all of the sudden we have this," he said. "I've been getting calls from customers about warranties. I can't see this as a positive move."

The government has said it would guarantee GM and Chrysler warranties as the companies restructure.

Libby did say GM should be applauded for not building too many vehicles and then having to spend big on rebates and other incentives to move them, something the Detroit Three have been guilty of in the past.

Other GM dealers said a shutdown of up to nine weeks is jarring, but not unexpected given the sales slump.

"Nine weeks seems like an awful long time, but the way business is, not an awful lot of cars are being sold anyway," said George Tasker, fleet manager at Martin Chevrolet in Torrance, Calif.

Tasker said the move wouldn't affect business, as dealers would "get together and trade more easily" to find the exact car a customer wanted.

Nearly all automakers with U.S. factories have closed plants or cut production to deal with the auto sales slump. Earlier this year, GM temporarily closed 20 factories across North America due to weak sales, some for the entire month of January. Chrysler LLC, also subsisting on government loans, closed all 30 of its manufacturing plants for a month in January to counter the auto sales downturn.

Ford Motor Co. also shut down 10 North American assembly plants for an extra week in January, and both Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co. have cut production.
 
Wait til CM gets a solid footing with Barney as CFO. This is what we get to look forward to. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAqPMJFaEdY



I'll hold on to my '31 Ford PU thanks - at least stupid me can fix it when it breaks down. It has an L4 engine with more horses than the CM car of the future and can even be converted to run on 'shiine.
 
Viva La Migra said:
I refuse to morn the impending death of GM. In 1996 I had the misfortune of buying a 1995 Chevy Cavalier. I would rather have had a 1970 Pinto than that P.O.S.! GM simply made inferior cars and the autoworkers were too fat from their high pay and benefits to care enough to make a quality product! I will never purchase a GM vehicle made after 1986 again!

GOODBYE GM! GOOD RIDDANCE!

Not that I'm bitter or anything.:toung:
Click to expand...
Too bad you have this narrow minded mentality..that is probably a lot of the reason with people like you that has caused the implosion of our US auto industry..granted, a few of your reasons I feel are sound..especially about the high paid workers..but you can blame unions for that mostly..

Anyway, GM products have improved greatly over the last 10 years or so..trying to keep up the quality end competeing with the Japanense/Asian models...You can't fairly compare GM of today with what GM was doing in the 80's and 90's...


On that note, check this out...
http://heavens-gates.com/usworkers/
 
I refuse to morn the impending death of GM. In 1996 I had the misfortune of buying a 1995 Chevy Cavalier. I would rather have had a 1970 Pinto than that P.O.S.! GM simply made inferior cars and the autoworkers were too fat from their high pay and benefits to care enough to make a quality product! I will never purchase a GM vehicle made after 1986 again!

GOODBYE GM! GOOD RIDDANCE!

Not that I'm bitter or anything.:toung:
 
"The 3 P's of Motordom" .... where did they go?

Reflecting a bit this evening. My great grandfather worked for Pierce-Arrow for many years. Beautiful cars they were. The pride of Buffalo, NY.

Pierce-Arrow: The great depression was their death knell and they finally went insolvent in the late '30's.

Peerless: Built in Cleveland,OH. Beauties also. Exited the automobile business in the early '30's

Packard: Struggled along until the late fifties. Was that a Packard or a studebaker?:)

Ask most kids running the roads these days if they know the 3 P's of Motordom - most all will be stumped. I must be gettin' aged!
 
budnipper1 said:
HA! Many a salesmen have blew a sale to me with that line. What's so special about "this week"?:suspicious:
But your quoted price is in my ballpark. Since my test drive, I've read that a 6-speed automatic transmission has been added as an option since the 2009 model was first offered.
​
Click to expand...

What was so special about "this week", twp weeks ago, is that you could have still gotten one then.

Can't now. Too late. GM is going down, and they are taking the deals with them into bankruptcy.

Sorry- too late now.

by the way- you should pass on the six-speed transmission. It doesn't really add anything at all to the value- and doesn't help MPG or anything either.
 
More GM workers laid off as gov't deadlines loom
1,600 workers getting laid off as GM reveals $2.8M in lobbying costs, gov't deadlines loom
Tom Krisher, AP Auto Writer
Monday April 20, 2009, 6:26 pm EDT

DETROIT (AP) -- General Motors Corp. started firing 1,600 white-collar workers Monday, continuing its effort to slash costs and qualify for more government loans on the same day it revealed it spent $2.8 million in the first three months of this year to lobby federal lawmakers.

Meanwhile, Fiat's CEO left Italy to resume critical talks on an alliance with Chrysler LLC, as deadlines draw closer for GM and Chrysler to finish their restructuring plans.

Both automakers are living on a combined $17.4 billion in government loans and have said they'll need more money to survive. Chrysler must cut its debt and its labor costs and forge an alliance with Fiat Group SpA by April 30, or President Barack Obama says Chrysler won't get any more help.

If GM can swap much of its debt for stock and get concessions from the UAW and Canadian Auto Workers by June 1, the government says it will provide more loans to keep the company going. Bankruptcy financing also is possible if the company determines Chapter 11 is its best bet to achieve the cuts it needs.

GM's layoffs this week bring the automaker close to its goal announced in February to cut 3,400 U.S. salaried positions, spokesman Tom Wilkinson said. GM has about 29,000 salaried workers in the U.S.

The company has thousands of workers at several facilities in Ohio, including a major assembly complex in Lordstown, near Youngstown. The factories to be closed have not yet been identified.

"In these unprecedented times, GM is reinventing every aspect of our business, including our organizational size and structure, to create a lean and agile company," GM North America President Troy Clarke said Monday in an e-mail to employees obtained by The Associated Press.

Meanwhile, GM said in a government filing that it spent $2.8 million in the first quarter lobbying the U.S. government on a range of issues, including the economic stimulus package, and environmental, consumer safety and health issues.

"We're a part of arguably one of the most regulated industries and we provide a voice in complex policy discussions," GM spokesman Greg Martin said.

GM's lobbying costs fell 15 percent from the $3.3 million it spent in the fourth quarter of 2008, but they rose from the $2.7 million GM spent in the third quarter.

Chrysler and its parent company Cerberus Capital Management LP together spent just $550,000 lobbying during the first three months of this year, according to government filings. That's down more than 75 percent from what the two spent during the last three months of 2008.

GM has said it will eliminate 47,000 jobs worldwide by the end of 2009, but the cuts may go even deeper as the company moves toward its deadline. CEO Fritz Henderson has said the automaker will close more factories beyond five announced in February. The factories to be closed have not yet been identified.

"There is no question, as we look at our revised plan to go deeper and go faster in our operational restructuring, there will be further reductions in manpower, people, that are going to affect communities, affect plants and people, both on hourly and the salaried side of the business," Henderson told reporters Friday.

For GM to qualify for more government aid, the UAW must agree to take stock for part of the roughly $20 billion that GM owes to a union-run trust that will cover retiree health care costs starting next year. The UAW and CAW also must agree to cut labor costs.

GM must also persuade the holders of $28 billion in GM bonds to take stock in exchange for part of the debt.

For Chrysler, the next few days could be critical. Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne arrived in the U.S. Monday to try and finish alliance talks with just over a week to go. The companies are discussing a deal that would give Fiat a 20 percent stake in the Auburn Hills, Mich., automaker in exchange for Fiat's small-car technology.

The CAW was scheduled to resume negotiations with Chrysler on Monday night, and CAW President Ken Lewenza seemed to soften his stance against deviating from a deal inked last month with GM.

Lewenza said the situation is "shifting enormously" and he's still waiting to see the outcome of negotiations between Chrysler and the UAW.

Meanwhile, the UAW told members and supporters in a mass e-mail Monday to contact the White House and "insist that workers and retirees must be treated in a fair and equitable manner in any restructuring plans."

"We need President Obama and his auto task force to stand up for the interests of workers and retirees in these restructuring negotiations," the e-mail said. "Please call or e-mail President Obama right away on this critically important issue."

White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage said in an e-mail that the auto task force "will continue to have an open door through this process and will continue to hear the views of all the stakeholders involved."

Although the backing of the UAW and other unions was key to President Barack Obama's election last fall, he nonetheless has called on the union to accept deeper concessions so the Detroit Three can better stand up to the foreign competition. Japanese and European automakers generally have lower labor costs and a nonunion work force at their U.S. facilities.

Associated Press Writers Dan Strumpf in New York, Stephen Manning and Julie Hirschfeld Davis in Washington, and Rob Gillies in Toronto contributed to this report.
 
James48843 said:
Budnipper-

I can get you a window-sticker 31K extended cab Silverado, V8 flexfuel, trailer package, etc. for about 22K. But you have to take it this week.
How many would you like?
Click to expand...
HA! Many a salesmen have blew a sale to me with that line. What's so special about "this week"?:suspicious:
But your quoted price is in my ballpark. Since my test drive, I've read that a 6-speed automatic transmission has been added as an option since the 2009 model was first offered.
​
View attachment 6121

View attachment 6122
 
Budnipper-

I can get you a window-sticker 31K extended cab Silverado, V8 flexfuel, trailer package, etc. for about 22K. But you have to take it this week.

How many would you like?
 
Thunderhorse said:
Back to article BN1 posted - #1 in this thread... the question remains.
Click to expand...

Last week, for my own curiosity, I stopped at a Buick/GMC truck dealership in Columbia, TN. I'd been hearing tall tales about prices on new pick-ups being slashed to the bone. I test drove a moderately-loaded GMC Sierra SLE extended-cab pickup with a window sticker price of about $33K. Spent about an hour talking with the salesman. I didn't buy one, but the best price he offered was $25K and change. Not too bad for an hour of casual negotiating, but nothing like the give-away prices I had heard the rumors about. Later that day, I talked to a local "insider" friend in the auto business who said that the dealership I visited only sold 3 vehicles last month and only 2 the month before. Before the bail-out $h!t hit the fan, they averaged 20 to 25 a month. He also said that recently they had fired the assistant sales manager, laid-off several people in the shop and the regular mechanics were having to take up the slack by doing clean-up and detailing work in the body shop. Also, the sales staff was cut and those left were put on straight commission. No sale, no pay. That dealership is about as old as I am, but I don't see how they could stay in business much longer at this rate. I plan to check back there again in a week or so to see if their "best price" has dropped any. :cheesy:

Another example of bad news:
A Nashville Dodge dealership was padlocked recently because of unpaid taxes owed to the state.
The owner is crying FOUL and saying that the non-payment of taxes was an "oversight". Sound familiar? :suspicious:
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090321/BUSINESS01/903210340/1003/NEWS01
 
Setting the PR stage for another bailout.:(


http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE52S0XT20090329

GM CEO forced out as U.S. readies autos aid
Mon Mar 30, 2009 1:20am BST
By John Crawley and Kevin Krolicki

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - General Motors Chief Executive Rick Wagoner resigned under pressure from the Obama administration on Sunday as the government prepared to announce a second bailout for the company and its smaller rival Chrysler.

Wagoner, a career GM executive and CEO since 2000, is stepping down as the top U.S. automaker struggles with a recession-fuelled sales implosion that has pushed GM and many of its suppliers and dealers to the brink of failure.

"For them to change captains right in the middle of the rapids is not something GM would have done, but now (President Barack) Obama or (Treasury Secretary Timothy) Geithner can say, we've asked them to make the ultimate sacrifice," said Aaron Bragman, an analyst with IHS Global Insight.

University of Maryland economist Peter Morici, a one-time critic of Wagoner who had called for him to resign but now believes he had "started to get it," said the administration has a "PR problem" regarding unpopular corporate bailouts.

"They are bailing out just about anybody that shows up and says they need cash. The public has grown weary of it and instead of throwing a banker to the wolves they have decided to throw Wagoner to the wolves," Morici said.

GM would not confirm the decision. A White House official, who spoke anonymously because the resignation had not been announced, said it was done at the request of the administration.

NO WORD ON SUCCESSOR
Fritz Henderson, GM's chief operating officer, is the No. 2 executive at the automaker and widely considered to the leading internal candidate as Wagoner's successor.

Obama last week cited mismanagement "over the years" for some of the auto industry's severe financial problems, a point that stung Wagoner since his counterparts at Ford Motor, Alan Mulally, and Chrysler, Bob Nardelli, are relative newcomers brought in from outside the industry.

GM has lost about $82 billion (57 billion pounds) since 2005 when its problems began to mount in the U.S. market. GM has lost about 95 percent of its value since Wagoner took over as CEO.

Wagoner was in Washington on Friday to meet with the White House-appointed task force on auto restructuring. Obama is expected to announce that panel's recommendations on Monday.

Together, GM and Chrysler have asked for another $22 billion in government loans to ride out the weakest market for new cars in almost 30 years. Ford, which is also struggling, is not seeking federal help.

Obama said earlier Sunday that GM and Chrysler have not done enough to save themselves since receiving a $17.4 billion bailout in December.
"They're not there yet," Obama said in a taped interview on the CBS-TV news program "Face The Nation."

GM and Chrysler have run through most of the initial bailout and are at risk of bankruptcy without immediate help.

Chrysler, which is also pushing to complete a tie-up with Italy's Fiat, has said it needs additional funding as soon as Tuesday to avoid a cash crisis.

But neither automaker has finished the cost-cutting overhaul dictated by the terms of the auto industry bailout launched by the Bush administration that set a deadline of March 31 for determining whether the companies can be saved.

Analysts say that presents a dilemma for the Obama administration. GM and Chrysler employ almost 160,000 U.S. workers and allowing the automakers to fail would cause widespread hardship, especially in the industrial-belt Midwest, at a time when the economy remains mired in recession.

As confidence has grown that the White House will not push the car companies into bankruptcy, it has also become more difficult to clinch cost-saving deals both GM and Chrysler need to reach with creditors and the United Auto Workers union.

Obama said the automakers had more work to do to win concessions from creditors, labour and other groups.

"We think we can have a successful U.S. auto industry. But it's got to be one that's realistically designed to weather this storm," Obama said, stressing that all parties must sacrifice.

GM and Chrysler have won pending contract concessions from the United Auto Workers intended to bring factory labour costs in line with those of Japanese automakers led by Toyota Motor that have operations in the United States.

But GM and Chrysler have failed to meet other targets set for them by the government in December. In particular, talks intended to cut debt at both companies have failed to produce results over the past six weeks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tsptalk
  • Article Article
TSP Talk - Big tech or bust
Replies
0
Views
1K
tsptalk
tsptalk
NewsFeeder
Google backs a startup that aims to bring mixed reality to any car windshield or plan
Replies
0
Views
152
NewsFeeder
NewsFeeder
tsptalk
  • Article Article
TSP Talk - The jobs report was great, or was it - and does it matter?
Replies
0
Views
276
tsptalk
tsptalk
tsptalk
  • Article Article
TSP Talk - New highs or bust
Replies
0
Views
764
tsptalk
tsptalk
NewsFeeder
These are the 3 big risks to the stock market, economist says
Replies
0
Views
92
NewsFeeder
NewsFeeder
Back
Top