Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion Automotive news and discussion about upcoming vehicles

So what does GM/Chevrolet look like in late 2009?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old May 28, 2009 | 09:21 AM
  #1  
Z28x's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Question So what does GM/Chevrolet look like in late 2009?

Seems like one of the more popular rumors is the company name will change to something like Chevrolet Motor Company and will be only GM powertrain, Chevrolet, and Cadillac. Maybe Buick and GMC too at least for a short period of time? Opel and a lot of GM Europe gets sold off. GM Korea (Deawoo) gets sold off. Hummer, Saab, Saturn are all sold off. But what happens to GM South America and Holden?

What ever the company is that is selling Camaros at the end of this year, what do they look like?
Old May 28, 2009 | 09:31 AM
  #2  
Z284ever's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
IF everything goes well............


The "New GM" may end up being one of the leanest, meanest, quickest moving auto companies in the world. There certainly will be a huge shake-up in it's culture - a culture which not only needs shaking up, it needs reinvention. And hopefully, younger, visionary leaders will fill the void.

If the economy turns around, I can see the "New GM" turning huge profits very soon.

IF everything goes well....
Old May 28, 2009 | 09:37 AM
  #3  
soul strife's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 824
From: North of Cincy
If by "New GM" you mean 70% owned by the Government and 20% owned by Unions...Yeah, I don't see younger or visionary.
Old May 28, 2009 | 10:04 AM
  #4  
JakeRobb's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,507
From: Okemos, MI
Originally Posted by soul strife
If by "New GM" you mean 70% owned by the Government and 20% owned by Unions...Yeah, I don't see younger or visionary.
As far as the government's 70%, it's ownership only -- not management. They will likely play a role in naming the new management, but that's where it ends. The first financial responsibility "New GM" has to meet is to buy itself back from the government.

I'm not sure if the unions will keep their stake, or if the plan is to buy that back too.
Old May 28, 2009 | 10:20 AM
  #5  
Z28x's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
If everything goes good I imagine this new company will go public and sell off the government shares. US Gov't could end up making money on this, or at least getting back a good amount of what they put in. Then there are the saving in unemployment and lost tax revenue that will be saved that people forget about.
Old May 28, 2009 | 10:25 AM
  #6  
Z284ever's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Originally Posted by soul strife
If by "New GM" you mean 70% owned by the Government and 20% owned by Unions...Yeah, I don't see younger or visionary.
Yeah, I don't much like that either. But I read this morning that bondholders will get 10% initially, then another 7.5% and then a further 7.5%, when GM's market caps reach, $15B and $30B respectively.

The goal here, would be to buy out the feds and UAW asap.
Old May 28, 2009 | 10:27 AM
  #7  
jg95z28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,705
From: Oakland, California
In other industries some of the strongest companies that are still around and weathering the recession are employee owned companies. Granted, most are not union shops, however just because the employees have a voices doesn't mean its a bad thing.
Old May 28, 2009 | 11:10 AM
  #8  
R377's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,712
From: Ontario
Originally Posted by JakeRobb
I'm not sure if the unions will keep their stake, or if the plan is to buy that back too.
I would think the union will want to unload its shares as soon as makes financial sense. Same with Chrysler too.
Old May 28, 2009 | 12:09 PM
  #9  
hookem's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 6
IMO some of you are very naive to think the Feds are only going to silent owners of the new GM. Obama is going to use his 70% ownership to push his green agenda at the tax payers expense.

When all the dust settles GM is going to be nothing more than another amtrak. They're going to offer products that nobody wants. The only people that are going to win in this are the unions and environmentalists. Personally if this is the way it works out, I'd rather see GM out of business.
Old May 28, 2009 | 12:53 PM
  #10  
Z28x's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Originally Posted by hookem
IMO some of you are very naive to think the Feds are only going to silent owners of the new GM. Obama is going to use his 70% ownership to push his green agenda at the tax payers expense.

When all the dust settles GM is going to be nothing more than another amtrak. They're going to offer products that nobody wants. The only people that are going to win in this are the unions and environmentalists. Personally if this is the way it works out, I'd rather see GM out of business.
You sound like just another GM hater but anyways.....Why are people so paranoid that GM is going to make efficient cars? God forbid the pull a Honda and make the Malibu and Cobalt get good mileage and become the #1 selling cars in their segment all while making a profit.

The only way GM could be another Amtrak is if sales of all other brands of cars are banned in the USA, do you honestly think that is going to happen? No competition and only one choice.

How are the Unions and environmentalist going to win if no one is buying the cars? For the unions to win a lot of profitable cars need to be sold. For the Environmentalists to win a lot of people have to want to buy and then go out an buy a more efficient car or plug in car. Just about everyone I know would love stick it to the oil companies and drive a plug-in but nobody makes one.

My prediction is Chevy will only sell profitable cars from now on with the exception of the first couple of years of Volt sales. In case you haven't picked up a news paper since the Clinton years, the US Gov't is out of money. They are looking at new ways of getting more. Making GM profitable and then selling off their shares is one of those ways.

Last edited by Z28x; May 28, 2009 at 12:59 PM.
Old May 28, 2009 | 01:24 PM
  #11  
Z28Wilson's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,165
From: Sterling Heights, MI
Originally Posted by Z28x
For the Environmentalists to win a lot of people have to want to buy and then go out an buy a more efficient car or plug in car. Just about everyone I know would love stick it to the oil companies and drive a plug-in but nobody makes one.
Oh sure, a lot of people say a lot of things. But when the rubber meets the road, so to speak, and it's time to pay a handsome premium for a hybrid, or plug-in, or a car that runs on fairy dust, the chances are they WON'T. The sales stats generally bare that out.

I'm not one of those that feels the Gov't will turn GM into a bigger version of Club Cadet, exclusively making crash-worthy golf carts. I "think" they're smart enough to give the "new" GM the space it needs to build a wide range of profitable vehicles.

In case you haven't picked up a news paper since the Clinton years, the US Gov't is out of money. They are looking at new ways of getting more. Making GM profitable and then selling off their shares is one of those ways.
A bit ridiculous if you ask me. For one, whatever money they can get from a sale of "good" GM is hardly a spit into the Pacific Ocean that is U.S. debt. Furthermore, I'm sorry, but the Gov't has no business "looking for ways" to fund its recklessness by taking over struggling private enterprise with the intentions of turning a profit for itself. It's an awfully dangerous precident.

Last edited by Z28Wilson; May 28, 2009 at 01:26 PM.
Old May 28, 2009 | 01:35 PM
  #12  
Z28x's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Originally Posted by Z28Wilson
A bit ridiculous if you ask me. For one, whatever money they can get from a sale of "good" GM is hardly a spit into the Pacific Ocean that is U.S. debt. Furthermore, I'm sorry, but the Gov't has no business "looking for ways" to fund its recklessness by taking over struggling private enterprise with the intentions of turning a profit for itself. It's an awfully dangerous precident.
It is too late they already have GM. They took 70% GM ownership over to save them money, they will let them become a profitable company again and sell them off to make money back.

What it comes down to is Is the United Sates better off with no GM, or a stream lined and profitable Chevrolet/Cadillac?

So back to part of the original question, anyone have any ideas about Holden's role in the new GM/Chevrolet?
Old May 28, 2009 | 01:48 PM
  #13  
El Duce's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 429
Originally Posted by Z28x
What it comes down to is Is the United Sates better off with no GM, or a stream lined Chevrolet/Cadillac run by the government who has yet to make money on anything they've ever been involved with?
Fixed.
Old May 28, 2009 | 01:49 PM
  #14  
Z28Wilson's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,165
From: Sterling Heights, MI
Originally Posted by Z28x
What it comes down to is Is the United Sates better off with no GM, or a stream lined and profitable Chevrolet/Cadillac?
Simple answers: Short-term, no we are not better off with no GM. Long-term? I guess we're better off with Chevy/Cadillac, but who really knows? Just how profitable will they be? GM will not be the dominant employer it once was regardless of how it all shakes out, so the "what's good for GM is good for America" sentiment is greatly reduced.

So back to part of the original question, anyone have any ideas about Holden's role in the new GM/Chevrolet?
I haven't seen Holden's balance sheet. If they are part of "good" GM why wouldn't they soldier on and provide RWD engineering to Chevy and Cadillac?
Old May 28, 2009 | 02:00 PM
  #15  
Z28x's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Originally Posted by Z28Wilson
Simple answers: Short-term, no we are not better off with no GM. Long-term? I guess we're better off with Chevy/Cadillac, but who really knows? Just how profitable will they be? GM will not be the dominant employer it once was regardless of how it all shakes out, so the "what's good for GM is good for America" sentiment is greatly reduced.
We also have to look past just GM's balance sheet and how they impact the United States GDP, how much tax workers pay, how those dollars keep getting recycled though the economy and how much unemployment would cost tax payers if GM was no more.

Originally Posted by Z28Wilson
I haven't seen Holden's balance sheet. If they are part of "good" GM why wouldn't they soldier on and provide RWD engineering to Chevy and Cadillac?
because "New GM" will need to raise money and will have to sell off some good assets no matter what.



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:29 PM.