http://businessweek.com/magazine/con...9117_mz017.htm

 

Nothing new really... but still not good news

 

hopefully it really does thin out a LOT in 5 years with the whole medicare thing

 

if the stock goes lower, I'm buying. right now the dividend pays $2 per $36 share, that is 5.55% anually. If I can get it so the dividend pays 7% or better then I'll buy some for my IRA

 

The article makes good point, they've pulled out of far worse spots than this.

 

Though GM does have some serious issues, I still think the company is a good investment and they have released some good products this year. The new Malibu is selling well and really is a good little car. As for the health benefits problem they might want to start backing politicians who support universal public healthcare. That would save a huge chunk of change for all the auto manufacturers.

GM really need to pay attention to the grass roots of the market. Chrysler's sport sedans are a runaway success, and they really represent what the GTO should have been. I expect the SUV market to shrink now because of high fuel prices and just the end of a fad. And durability has to be addressed.

I know there's prophets of disaster all over the place forecasting doom. But I think there's a future yet.

 

Yippee another "GM is going bankrupt article".

 

1. The automotive sector is highly cyclical. North American sales volumes have peaked and will decrease in the coming year. I'd say we've entered the downward swing of the cycle.

2. GM has fully funded their pension plan with borrowing and the sale of profitable non-core assets. I don't have a clue why GM made this massive and completely non-productive investment.

 

What did they sell? Can you explain? Because I don't know what you are talking about and it would be nice to know.


I'd say 2005 is a great time to buy GM stock. They are in a slump right now with old trucks, cars, and SUVs. New trucks and SUV's, RWD cars, and wonderful profits are only a few years away. GM can turn things around, look at the marvelous job they've done with Cadillac. Look at the Vette, when they put 100% of their effort into a car, it is world class. Lets hope they put 100% into all of their future products.

 

They've sold off DirecTV to Rupert Murdock, GM of Canada's Military Division (maker of the Stryker) to General Dynamics and most recently they've worked out the sale of the Electromotive locomotive building subsidiary.

Then there was the massive bond issue that actually competed with the U.S. Treasury on the day of its issue.

I don't give stock tips. I just look at GM's carried over 2005 minivans and dread the prospect of largely carried-over GMT-900 trucks and SUVs. It is worth noting that the GMT-900 SUVs are premiering long before the trucks - the biggest revelation in the Business Week article. In past redesigns, SUVs always followed the pickups. For instance, the 1988 C/Ks were followed by the new Suburban/Blazer in 1992 and the 1999 Silverado was followed in 2000 by the Tahoe/Suburban. Traditionally, the fullsized SUVs need a longer lead time because the greater volume of engineering neccessary.

In any case, I only care about GM as an enthusiast. General Motor's role in the broader U.S. economy is invariably overstated. Enough of the investment.

 

LOL. If you're one of the largest companies in existence, you DO have a role in the U.S. economy.

 

Let's hope there are some exciting cars on the way to allow the Auto side of things to pick up the slack. Maybe steal a page from Chrysler's (or even some Ford's) playbook and offer some imaginatively styled cars to the masses. Solstice, Sky, etc. need to be just the tip of the iceberg...

 

The '5 year' reference was to the fact that by then, more retirees will be leaving the pension pool (aka dying) than joining.

 

yea, i understood
nah, i mean, yea, it'd be nice to have the money but i ain't gonna wish anybody dying

 

Compared to what it was 30 years ago, GM just isn't that important to the broader economy.