PDA

View Full Version : GM files registration for its IPO


quagmire
Aug 18, 2010, 03:47 PM
GM has filed registration with the SEC for its upcoming IPO. Once the IPO happens, the treasury stake will go below 50% most likely.

http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/news/news_detail.brand_gm.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2010/ipo/0818_release

iJohnHenry
Aug 18, 2010, 04:56 PM
GM has filed registration with the SEC for its upcoming IPO. Once the IPO happens, the treasury stake will go below 50% most likely.

I heard about this.

Could this be a new marketing strategy, to have even more shareholders, so they will buy GM to support earnings??

<cynical smilie here>

velocityg4
Aug 19, 2010, 08:54 AM
GM has filed registration with the SEC for its upcoming IPO. Once the IPO happens, the treasury stake will go below 50% most likely.

http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/news/news_detail.brand_gm.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2010/ipo/0818_release

If it ever gets to 0% ownership I may consider a GM again. As it stands there is only one car company in the world as far as I am concerned, Ford. If Ford eventually gets bought then I will start buying imports.

By the way I was always a GMC/Chevy owner since I started driving. My parents were also always GM owners too. Now I have a Ford and their next cars will be Fords.

obeygiant
Aug 19, 2010, 09:03 AM
I'll buy a few shares.

rdowns
Aug 19, 2010, 09:47 AM
I'd probably buy some if they price it right. Right, to me, is $10 a share tops.

QuantumLo0p
Aug 27, 2010, 12:52 PM
I may consider buying a GM product in the future but only after:

1) They quit lying about making profits when they really have not.

2) They quit lying about paying back the massive debt to the taxpayers when in reality they have only repaid a fraction of it.

3) The deceitful government does not have their grubby little fingers deep in GM, in bed with the labor union and desperately attempting to keep unsustainable contracts and pensions afloat when they should realize they cannot.

Now that I think of it, there really is no good reason to keep GM from sinking "like a rock" that it is.

It is what it is. Don't shoot the messenger.
:D

sprtnbsblplya
Aug 29, 2010, 08:55 PM
3) The deceitful government does not have their grubby little fingers deep in GM, in bed with the labor union and desperately attempting to keep unsustainable contracts and pensions afloat when they should realize they cannot.

Now that I think of it, there really is no good reason to keep GM from sinking "like a rock" that it is.


Agreed

quagmire
Aug 29, 2010, 09:23 PM
I may consider buying a GM product in the future but only after:

1) They quit lying about making profits when they really have not.

2) They quit lying about paying back the massive debt to the taxpayers when in reality they have only repaid a fraction of it.

3) The deceitful government does not have their grubby little fingers deep in GM, in bed with the labor union and desperately attempting to keep unsustainable contracts and pensions afloat when they should realize they cannot.

Now that I think of it, there really is no good reason to keep GM from sinking "like a rock" that it is.

It is what it is. Don't shoot the messenger.
:D


Do you have any reputable sources to back up your claim?

You may be a messenger, but you are a messenger with an agenda.

QuantumLo0p
Aug 29, 2010, 11:32 PM
Do you have any reputable sources to back up your claim? You may be a messenger, but you are a messenger with an agenda.

Of course, my dear Quagmire, I have an agenda. It is to reveal the deceit of the GM bailout. Your statements clash with reality but parallel the government's statements; so tell me, please, who really as an agenda? I would guess that GM and the U.S. government are reputable sources. When Obama goes on the air and makes statements, do you consider him to be a reliable source? GM also revealed they had paid back tax payer loan money with unspent tarp money. As for the government, well they have been continually feeding the public a steady stream of information, touting great news while all along there has been tremendous public opposition to the very concept of a bailout, let alone GM allegedly doing well.

Anyone at GM who had anything to do with the massively misleading statements about GM paying back their loan should be fired and investigated by a bipartisan congressional panel.

To add a little more reality fuel to the fire, Joanne Muller of Forbes points out GM reporting problems in her article "Why Can’t You Trust General Motors’ Financials? Because GM Says You Can’t." Muller says "...GM is saying it can’t guarantee its reported results are accurate. And its auditor, Deloitte & Touche, agrees. But GM wants you to invest in the company anyway."

And what's this I hear about Canada and GM??? OMG, I'm not even going there. Yet, anyways. : )

Wow. This GM debacle is looking more and more like a nightmare than an American dream.
:eek:

Eraserhead
Aug 30, 2010, 03:20 AM
From last weeks Economist:

Yet the doomsayers were wrong. Unlike, say, France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy, who used public funds to support Renault and Peugeot-CitroŽn on condition that they did not close factories in France, Mr Obama has been tough from the start. GM had to promise to slim down dramatically—cutting jobs, shuttering factories and shedding brands—to win its lifeline. The firm was forced to declare bankruptcy. Shareholders were wiped out. Top managers were swept aside. Unions did win some special favours: when Chrysler was divided among its creditors, for example, a union health fund did far better than secured bondholders whose claims should have been senior. Congress has put pressure on GM to build new models in America rather than Asia, and to keep open dealerships in certain electoral districts. But by and large Mr Obama has not used his stakes in GM and Chrysler for political ends. On the contrary, his goal has been to restore both firms to health and then get out as quickly as possible. GM is now profitable again and Chrysler, managed by Fiat, is making progress. Taxpayers might even turn a profit when GM is sold.

(source (http://www.economist.com/node/16846494?story_id=16846494))

Seems like the auto-bailout was a success.

QuantumLo0p
Aug 30, 2010, 06:07 PM
GM's sales have picked up a bit but they were totally misleading tax payers when the said they have repaid much of the tax payer loan. In reality they paid a portion of the loan with unspent tarp money. To explain what tarp is to my friends across the pond, well, it is another loan under the name of Troubled Asset Relief Program.

In short, GM paid back a portion of its loan with another loan.
:confused:

Eraserhead
Aug 31, 2010, 03:52 PM
That often happens in business. The main thing is that they are also making money so in the long run they'll be able to pay the principal of the loan back.

QuantumLo0p
Sep 1, 2010, 12:27 PM
That often happens in business. The main thing is that they are also making money so in the long run they'll be able to pay the principal of the loan back.


True but I wish GM had been much more transparent than they have been. Public opinion of GM suffers whenever GM gets its head lodged deep inside their bum.
:)

quagmire
Nov 10, 2010, 09:39 AM
Good news for the IPO next week. GM has posted a Q3 profit of $2 billion.

http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/news/news_detail.globalnews.brand_gm.html/content/Pages/news/global/en/2010/1110_earnings

obeygiant
Nov 18, 2010, 01:12 PM
Anybody get any shares today? I got some. :) We'll see how this goes.

quagmire
Nov 18, 2010, 02:31 PM
Anybody get any shares today? I got some. :) We'll see how this goes.

I would have if I had money that I could take a risk on, but I don't.

rdowns
Nov 18, 2010, 02:48 PM
Anybody get any shares today? I got some. :) We'll see how this goes.


Way overpriced, IMO.

Abstract
Nov 19, 2010, 04:33 AM
I'm still not confident on GM as a company. I am with Ford. I feel they're building better cars and have better prospects.

obeygiant
Nov 19, 2010, 09:37 AM
I'm still not confident on GM as a company. I am with Ford. I feel they're building better cars and have better prospects.

true in some aspects, but I think the Volt will be the car of the year.

quagmire
Nov 19, 2010, 10:26 AM
true in some aspects, but I think the Volt will be the car of the year.

The Volt deserves to be the car of the year( already has won MT's and Automotive COTY), but the Cruze is more important for GM even though the Volt is a game changer because it will take a bit to get the Volt's price down to where more consumers can afford it. Where the Cruze can get up to 42 MPG on the highway( you need to know how to drive stick).

GM also released the 2012 Buick LaCrosse eAssist( their 2nd generation mild-hybrid system) and will get 25 MPG in the city and 37 MPG on the highway which will be standard on the 4 cylinder models.

JoeG4
Nov 19, 2010, 04:53 PM
The Volt is an awesome (really expensive) little car. This is not unlike when Toyota launched the Prius, only this one looks a hell of a lot better.

But of course, that "badass American" trait will make it an unsavory car, with the more metro types favoring the "saavy" Asian design (ugh)

renewed
Nov 19, 2010, 05:30 PM
The Volt is an awesome (really expensive) little car. This is not unlike when Toyota launched the Prius, only this one looks a hell of a lot better.

But of course, that "badass American" trait will make it an unsavory car, with the more metro types favoring the "saavy" Asian design (ugh)

It also got Motor Trend Car of The Year.

iJohnHenry
Nov 19, 2010, 05:37 PM
It also got Motor Trend Car of The Year.

Motor Trend takes commercial ads.

Let's hold-off, until Consumer's Reports has received sufficient feed-back from owners, to reach a conclusion.

quagmire
Nov 19, 2010, 06:07 PM
Motor Trend takes commercial ads.

Let's hold-off, until Consumer's Reports has received sufficient feed-back from owners, to reach a conclusion.

CR is crap when it comes to cars. Sorry, a publication that claims to be unbiased gives Toyota a recommended buy simply because of perception and doesn't do it for any other automaker. This bit them in the rear end when the 2007 Tundra and 2007 Camry had problems. Again bit them in the rear when Toyota had all the SUA issues this year. It took them the SUA problems for CR to stop using that practice.

Also, consumers are idiots. If the Volt has any problems( it is a first year totally new technology, it probably will have some first year problems) because of GM's poor perception, consumers will most likely send a report into CR saying it had problems, etc. Now if a Prius has any problems, the owner might blow it off because of Toyota's perception and not send in a report.

DakotaGuy
Nov 21, 2010, 08:07 AM
CR is crap when it comes to cars. Sorry, a publication that claims to be unbiased gives Toyota a recommended buy simply because of perception and doesn't do it for any other automaker. This bit them in the rear end when the 2007 Tundra and 2007 Camry had problems. Again bit them in the rear when Toyota had all the SUA issues this year. It took them the SUA problems for CR to stop using that practice.

If this were completely true then why does CR also recommend quite a few models from Ford? I agree they can be pretty lenient on some of the Asian brands, especially Toyota, but they do recommend many models from other companies if they test well and have good reliability data.

iJohnHenry
Nov 21, 2010, 08:21 AM
If this were completely true then why does CR also recommend quite a few models from Ford? I agree they can be pretty lenient on some of the Asian brands, especially Toyota, but they do recommend many models from other companies if they test well and have good reliability data.

I fail to see their motivation for doing so. :confused:

Many Toyota owners are quite happy with their cars, in spite of the latest rash of gaffs by the brand.

I have never submitted a survey to CR, but I am quite happy with my 4-year-old KIA Optima/Magentis.

And we all know how Honda owners feel about their vehicles. ;)

quagmire
Nov 21, 2010, 08:23 AM
If this were completely true then why does CR also recommend quite a few models from Ford? I agree they can be pretty lenient on some of the Asian brands, especially Toyota, but they do recommend many models from other companies if they test well and have good reliability data.

I didn't say they didn't recommend other models from other companies. But, they did recommend and say reliability will be good on a completely new Toyota model without testing it and getting reliability stats because of Toyota's past. If you wanted to be unbiased, you wouldn't do that because you don't know if there are going to be any problems in a completely new model. They don't do that with Ford. They first test Ford and get reliability stats before they recommend it and say it is reliable.

CR has stated it would stop the practice ever since Toyota's SUA problems. But, it was a practice they should never have done. They should stick with reviewing appliances and leave cars alone.

jeffy.dee-lux
Nov 21, 2010, 03:12 PM
Motor Trend takes commercial ads.

Let's hold-off, until Consumer's Reports has received sufficient feed-back from owners, to reach a conclusion.

Sure MT takes commercial ads, but the Volt is so unique and distinct from everything else on the road that Motor Trend is able to give it the nod based simply on the idea, and the fact that they managed to execute the idea. MT made it pretty clear that the reason they like this car is the concept, and they explain that in pretty clear logic. This car allows zero-emissions for your daily drive while also offering the ability to drive just as far as any other car on the road. Simple as that. I could see how a magazine might be swayed one way or another in a tight race, but I don't see how this was a tight race at all for this title. The Volt is in a class of its own. The Leaf is great, but it's not exactly bringing anything new to the table. Just a well executed EV with modern technology. The Volt is ground breaking.

I would invest in GM if i knew how, I don't know anything about buying stock. The first time I considered it and started looking into it was back when Ford's stock was down below 2$, i guess that warrants a bit of a face palm... Maybe I should get off my ass this time, I think GM has potential looking at their upcoming products.

obeygiant
Nov 21, 2010, 06:12 PM
I would invest in GM if i knew how, I don't know anything about buying stock. The first time I considered it and started looking into it was back when Ford's stock was down below 2$, i guess that warrants a bit of a face palm... Maybe I should get off my ass this time, I think GM has potential looking at their upcoming products.

Put $500 into a iTrade (https://www.scotiaitrade.com/pages/home/main.shtml) account.