It isn’t “my” rule I’m “sticking with”…it’s the industry standard and has been for a very long time.

There are always those who don’t want to be confused by the facts - GM is free to “claim” anything they want and the foolish and/or those who either don’t care or who think GM walks on water are free to believe such claims. Likewise, the popular press is free to simply regurgitate what GM spoon-feeds them rather than do real reporting.

At the end of the day, however, GM’s claims aside, legitimate news/business publications, and for the most part those who read them, are usually smart enough to ferret out facts from fantasy and Press Releases from real information.

Let’s hope GM is expending as much effort on returning to profitability as it is by going through contortions to stay in the “no. 1” spot.

 

Question: Who counts the vehicles built at Nummi? Isn't the plant jointly owned by Toyota and GM?

 

Your dealing with one problem that you dont see in any other part of the world..Communism..that in itself is not playing by the rules..communism is a whole other set of rules in itself about "sharing" If a publicly traded company like the one presented has to give 50% of its ownership to the goverment since it is a communist company then the majority rule does not appy since the mandated rules do not appy in China as no other publicly traded company is owned by a goverment..
If in China they play by those rules and a 34% share is a majority share then yes GM owns that public part of the company..China dictates the laws of that country and they might differ from the rest of the world..if so 34% is a controlling share out of 50% and then they can count it..China is a country not a buisness..so the rules do not apply..

If China did buisness the same way the rest of the world did..then it would be a change in story..but they dont so..34% looks like a controling share by Chinese goverment standards..from the way I am looking at it..

 

Sorry,

That's just rationalization to try and justify GM's position.

This isn't about communism or the Chineese government; it's about GM ignoring that standard because the standard doesn't let them kepp their bragging rights of retaining the Nol 1 spot.

Of course we'll never know, but were Toyota not hot on their heals and ready to overtake them, I'd bet my 401(K) that GM would have never clained these units.

 

what if the standard does not apply to a communist country...

 

and no its not a "rationalization to try and justify GM's position."
If China is playing by different rules set up in thier country then no the rules for the standard do not apply..

 

After doing some reading up on this..since I have not read about this in some time..actually like 5 years..
In China if a company is doing very well and creating money it will take..not buy..not trade ...but take..as it is a communist country..The Chinese goverment will take 50% controling share in the company. Thus insuring no foreign influence. Once the controling share is in the hands of the goverment. If the company wants it can take its 50% share and publicly trade it it can. Therefore the only shares avalible to public trade is the 50%. Never the 100% was made public.
This is like the U.S. goverment just comming in and saying GM we want 50% or your shares Ford the same and Chrysler..all 50% of your shares.were not buying them we are just taking them..you are now owned by the U.S. goverment...then the rest of the 50% you can publicly trade...thing is it does not happen here in the U.S. and the rest of the world...but it does in China...why? Communist goverment operates seperate from the rest of the world...
If 50% is the only percentage of a company that the Chinese goverment publicly shares then any majority share of public stock is the controling share..does not matter if its toys, toasters or cars..
China plays by seperate rules, therefore the rules of standard do not apply..

 

You're talking as if the rule in China is 34% and therefore GM could never own more than 34% of a company. It's not ... as you noted above, foreign companies can own up to 50%, as GM does with GM-SAIC. So GM's 34% of GM-SAIC-Wuling is not the legal maximum they're allowed to own ... it's only the maximum that they own of that one company, for whatever reason. So they could still theoretically get to 50% of GM-SAIC-Wuling, and then they could count their sales.

 

no R377 what I am saying is is if 50% is the maximum public of GM-SAIC-Wuling. then if they own 34% then the 16% is the rest of the possible shares you could own. If GM owned 26% of it its the controlling share..but the way your thinking it is if the other 50% is public it is notever offered by law, they forfit it to the goverment..and even if GM could have 50% its still not a majority share IF both shares were public and not 1/2 given to the goverment said so by Chinese law..The way China is set up no outside company could ever have a controling share of more than 50%. The goverment takes that by right and law. This does not happen anywhere else. So how can the same rules apply when Chinas rules are not the standard?
China only lets 50% of the company be sold to public. GM bought into it at 34% .That is a controling share that is the maximum ok'd by Chinese goverment...not the same rules..the normal ratings do not apply when there is something changed to the rating of the shares. and it only happens in China. So does that mean everything that they put into China is counted as 0%??? Only way you could level it out in Chinas favor is to have every goverment TAKE 50% of the companies by rule of law..then you divide up the public trade of 50%..

And to bring it back to the other side of the public trade spectrum..is it not fair trade practice to have the controling share holder as the first in any title of ownership?
GM-SAIC-Wuling if so it says it right there as GM is the controlling public share owner.

 

Arguing about this 34% is still nothing but rationalization to make an irrational position seem rational.

GM claimed its China sub's sales and stopped rounding to the nearest 10,000 units (such rounding was routine until this year but guess what doing so this year would have put them in second place even with its Chineese sub's units - what a surprise) for one reason and one reason only - to so it can continue to "claim" it's the no. 1 auto producer.

Only blind loyalty to GM keeps people from admiting it.

In my opinion, all it's accomplished is to make GM look like an angry little child that got beat in a ball game and refuses to shake hands with the oppposing team.

 

We'll see if you sing the same tune when Nissan starts getting more involved with the damn Chinese.

 

I already am singing the "same tune" - Nissan is very heavily involved with the "dam Chineese" and have been for quite a while now.

 

Um, why did you use quotes around the misspellings, as though I spelled them that way?

 

Awfully quick to take offense, don’t you think?

Um, did it not occur that I used quotation marks because I was quoting and that the misspelling was simply my mispelling and not some back-door attempt at an insult?

If I wanted to quote and note a spelling error in the process, what I did is not the proper method anyway.

 

Well, since you had already quoted me using the quote function of the message board (and therefore had the words spelled correctly right above where you were typing), it did look like you were implying something else by using the hand-typed quotes. Sorry, but that is just how it looked.



Not offended, by the way. I asked a question; I didn't just state that you were insulting me somehow (not sure how that would be an insult anyway).