Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

GM files registration for its IPO

quagmire said:
GM has filed registration with the SEC for its upcoming IPO. Once the IPO happens, the treasury stake will go below 50% most likely.
Click to expand...

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>
 
quagmire said:
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/u...ontent/Pages/news/us/en/2010/ipo/0818_release
Click to expand...

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.
 
I'd probably buy some if they price it right. Right, to me, is $10 a share tops.
 
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
 
QuantumLo0p said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed
 
QuantumLo0p said:
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
Click to expand...


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

You may be a messenger, but you are a messenger with an agenda.
 
quagmire said:
Do you have any reputable sources to back up your claim? You may be a messenger, but you are a messenger with an agenda.
Click to expand...

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:
 
From last weeks Economist:

The Economist said:
Yet the doomsayers were wrong. Unlike, say, France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy, who used public funds to support Renault and Peugeot-Citroën 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.
Click to expand...

(source)

Seems like the auto-bailout was a success.
 
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:
 
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.
 
Eraserhead said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
:)
 
obeygiant said:
true in some aspects, but I think the Volt will be the car of the year.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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)
 
JoeG4 said:
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)
Click to expand...

It also got Motor Trend Car of The Year.
 
iJohnHenry said:
Motor Trend takes commercial ads.

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

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.
 
quagmire said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back