Politics

[Domina Nostra]

They are manufacturing Jeeps sold in foriegn markets in China, not ones for American sales. The Jeep you buy in Atlanta or Chicago, will be built here in the US. They are also not even shutting down any sites domestically to do it. They are simply putting additional resources in China to meet foreign demand. If you are going to make a statement like that, then you can at least tell the whole story.

I remember this argument from somewhere...

 

[Ndaccountant]

#1 in US Sales per Auto Sales - Markets Data Center - WSJ.com



hurumph



What industry would that have been? Because at the time, all manufacturing (including RV's, Shipping container and commercial vehicle) was failing across the board. If they were depending on their skillset, that skillset was getting cut across the country.



They are manufacturing Jeeps sold in foriegn markets in China, not ones for American sales. The Jeep you buy in Atlanta or Chicago, will be built here in the US. They are also not even shutting down any sites domestically to do it. They are simply putting additional resources in China to meet foreign demand. If you are going to make a statement like that, then you can at least tell the whole story.

It's also worth noting that GM sales growth from 2011 to 2012 was among the worst of all major autos and their market share decreased from FY 2011 19.6% to FY 2012 17.9. This is on par with their trend of the last 10 years.

GM growth in Sales FY 2011 to 2012- 3.7%
Ford growth - 4.7%
Chrysler - 20.6%
Toyota - 26.6%
Honda - 24%
Nissan - 9.5%
Hyundai - 8.9%
Mazda - 10.6%
Mitsubishi - (26.9%)
Kia - 14.9%
Subaru - 26%
Suzuki - (4.7%)
Mercedes - 12.7%
Volvo - 1.3%
Volkswagon - 35.1%
Audi - 18.5%
BMW - 13.5%
Porsche 20.7%
Auto Sales - Markets Data Center - WSJ.com

 

[phgreek]

They are manufacturing Jeeps sold in foriegn markets in China, not ones for American sales. The Jeep you buy in Atlanta or Chicago, will be built here in the US. They are also not even shutting down any sites domestically to do it. They are simply putting additional resources in China to meet foreign demand. If you are going to make a statement like that, then you can at least tell the whole story.

Yea..come on guys, you can't build those cars here for obvious mechanical and engineering limitations, for instance.................uh, uhm.

Whats the workforce makeup in China...same labor union deal there? Lots of Americans heading to China then? Profits...how are they accounted for? Lots of tax revenue for the good ole USA then?

Just because the issue the initial story attacked was factually off doesn't make the deed right dude, especially mixed with the hypocrisy of the rhetoric from the left...

 

[woolybug25]

It's also worth noting that GM sales growth from 2011 to 2012 was among the worst of all major autos and their market share decreased from FY 2011 19.6% to FY 2012 17.9. This is on par with their trend of the last 10 years.

GM growth in Sales FY 2011 to 2012- 3.7%
Ford growth - 4.7%
Chrysler - 20.6%
Toyota - 26.6%
Honda - 24%
Nissan - 9.5%
Hyundai - 8.9%
Mazda - 10.6%
Mitsubishi - (26.9%)
Kia - 14.9%
Subaru - 26%
Suzuki - (4.7%)
Mercedes - 12.7%
Volvo - 1.3%
Volkswagon - 35.1%
Audi - 18.5%
BMW - 13.5%
Porsche 20.7%
Auto Sales - Markets Data Center - WSJ.com

I wont post the full graph because of its size, but I urge others to actually take a look at it. What you are failing to mention is that GM had a YTD % change of -87.1 in import car sales. This is due to the exit of many foreign markets. This is what dragged down their overall number from what would have been historical highs. They had an 11.3% increase in domestic car sales for instance. It is also exponentially more difficult to raise revenue percentiles when you have revenues exceeding $2.5B.

I've worked with GM and they are currently an Investment Grade credit. These are all details, that as an accountant, you should be fully aware of.

 

[woolybug25]

Yea..come on guys, you can't build those cars here for obvious mechanical and engineering limitations, for instance.................uh, uhm.

Whats the workforce makeup in China...same labor union deal there? Lots of Americans heading to China then? Profits...how are they accounted for? Lots of tax revenue for the good ole USA then?

Just because the issue the initial story attacked was factually off doesn't make the deed right dude, especially mixed with the hypocrisy of the rhetoric from the left...

No, they are built over there because that is where they will be sold and shipped internationally from. It's a cost savings measure that is absolutely necessary for a company that just decimated their foreign market focus of their company. Are you going to give them credit for the foriegn market shift that cost them a -87% decrease in foreign revenues? No?

I'm sure you have no problem with Toyota building plants here in the US for the same reason, right?

 

[Ndaccountant]

I wont post the full graph because of its size, but I urge others to actually take a look at it. What you are failing to mention is that GM had a YTD % change of -87.1 in import car sales. This is due to the exit of many foreign markets. This is what dragged down their overall number from what would have been historical highs. They had an 11.3% increase in domestic car sales for instance. It is also exponentially more difficult to raise revenue percentiles when you have revenues exceeding $2.5B.

I've worked with GM and they are currently an Investment Grade credit. These are all details, that as an accountant, you should be fully aware of.

You are kidding right?

That -87% yu refer to made up exactly 1.17% of their entire US business. Even assuming they were flat there still puts them way behind the competition in growth.

Also, for someone that apprently works with the company, I would hope you would realize that their revenues far exceed $2.5b. The chart was unit sales, not dollar sales. A detail I thought someone of your stature would catch. Also, that chart was US market share, not world market share.

Finally, the entire light vehicle market increased by 13% in 2012. They lagged the market and their market share has been declining for the last decade. Simple as that.

 

[woolybug25]

You are kidding right?

That -87% yu refer to made up exactly 1.17% of their entire US business. Even assuming they were flat there still puts them way behind the competition in growth.

Also, for someone that apprently works with the company, I would hope you would realize that their revenues far exceed $2.5b. The chart was unit sales, not dollar sales. A detail I thought someone of your stature would catch. Also, that chart was US market share, not world market share.

Finally, the entire light vehicle market increased by 13% in 2012. They lagged the market and their market share has been declining for the last decade. Simple as that.

Thanks again for putting words in my mouth. I never referred to it being a world market. I have specifically talked about the domestic market the entire time. Again, you failed to mention that they are the leader in revenue, units, etc. So it is exponentially harder to have YoY percentile growth. But that doesn't stop you from talking about it, does it?

Again. I urge any of you reading this to take a look at the report linked. It certaintly does not paint the gloomy picture that NDacct is trying to portray, and it is from the WSJ, so it is a respectable reference.

I have to ask NDacct, personal or corporate accountant? CPA?

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Toyota's #1 in the world in terms of number of vehciles sold, but I think GM used to be awhile back.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Thanks again for putting words in my mouth. I never referred to it being a world market. I have specifically talked about the domestic market the entire time. Again, you failed to mention that they are the leader in revenue, units, etc. So it is exponentially harder to have YoY percentile growth. But that doesn't stop you from talking about it, does it?

Again. I urge any of you reading this to take a look at the report linked. It certaintly does not paint the gloomy picture that NDacct is trying to portray, and it is from the WSJ, so it is a respectable reference.

I have to ask NDacct, personal or corporate accountant? CPA?

I never said the company was bad, just that their sales growth lagged the market. Thanks for putting words into MY mouth.

So, if their us market share declined, as the report states, you are saying this is due to two things based on what your previous posts said:
1. The were so big to begin with that matching industry growth was too tough for them. If that were the case, please answer why their market share has declined significantly in the last 10 years?
2. The amount of imports shrank so much, that it skews the numbers (which, as the report clearly shows, import of cars was only 1.17% of their unit sales in 2011).

Did I get something wrong there? Please, show me the light.

Where I work or what my job role is does not add value to this discussion.

 

[woolybug25]

I never said the company was bad, just that their sales growth lagged the market. Thanks for putting words into MY mouth.

So, if their us market share declined, as the report states, you are saying this is due to two things based on what your previous posts said:
1. The were so big to begin with that matching industry growth was too tough for them. If that were the case, please answer why their market share has declined significantly in the last 10 years?
2. The amount of imports shrank so much, that it skews the numbers (which, as the report clearly shows, import of cars was only 1.17% of their unit sales in 2011).

Did I get something wrong there? Please, show me the light.

Where I work or what my job role is does not add value to this discussion.

You sure want a lot of answers to your questions without ever wanting to answer ones yourself.

1) Most industry leaders lag industry growth because as revenues grow, it becomes harder to sutain % growth. For instance, it's easy for a start up to show 500% growth, where it is literally impossible for a Fortune 500 company to do the same. So in GM's case, it should be expected for them to lag the industry average growth %. Financial Analysis 101...

2) Easy. Because other companies in the industry were reporting % changes as high 108.6% (Subaru). Meanwhile, GM was posting negative numbers. So to someone looking at it completely out of a credit perspective, I understand why you would just try to focus on the 1.7% of sales. But the reality is that if they would have had marginal growth in that category, even on par with mature companies of similar size (Toyota had 26.1%) it would have had an impact on their overall number. Finally, the reasont his number was so low was because they are exiting that portfolio. As did both of the other Big 3. This change in philosophy is a major drag on a company's ability to grow, but GM still managed to get YoY growth of what was already the US's biggest firm.

So let me get this right... it's ok for you to ask me personal questions about whether I have kids and whatnot, but it is completely out of context for me to ask you for your professional credentials? I asked because I work with CPA's/Corp Accts every day. You don't use the same terminology or even approach analysis in the same way. So I was geniunly interested in your corporate accounting understanding. So I believe if you are going to continue to discredit my understanding of financial analysis, that your credentials absolutely add value to the conversation.

 

[Black Irish]

I wont post the full graph because of its size, but I urge others to actually take a look at it. What you are failing to mention is that GM had a YTD % change of -87.1 in import car sales. This is due to the exit of many foreign markets. This is what dragged down their overall number from what would have been historical highs. They had an 11.3% increase in domestic car sales for instance. It is also exponentially more difficult to raise revenue percentiles when you have revenues exceeding $2.5B.

I've worked with GM and they are currently an Investment Grade credit. These are all details, that as an accountant, you should be fully aware of.

Could this have something to do with the fact that the investment market knows that the federal government will not let GM fail? So it's logical to assume that GM is almost as solid an investment as T-bills because they implicitly have the backing of the United States government? Serious question, not being a smart aleck.

 

[woolybug25]

Could this have something to do with the fact that the investment market knows that the federal government will not let GM fail? So it's logical to assume that GM is almost as solid an investment as T-bills because they implicitly have the backing of the United States government? Serious question, not being a smart aleck.

Good question. Those items are more like icing. If an analyst wanted to support or fully downgrade, they would add that to a review. But they aren't actual inputs. Most analysis is based off of ratio analysis and bond ratings. Those bond ratings have more to do with the t-bills than a financial institutions inparticular Risk Rating.

A Risk Rating is going to be different from company to company (but universally, 1-4 is investment grade), but monitored by the SEC. Annual audits are part of the process because financial institutions base their loan-loss provisions on it.

Hope that helps.

 

[Ndaccountant]

You sure want a lot of answers to your questions without ever wanting to answer ones yourself.

1) Most industry leaders lag industry growth because as revenues grow, it becomes harder to sutain % growth. For instance, it's easy for a start up to show 500% growth, where it is literally impossible for a Fortune 500 company to do the same. So in GM's case, it should be expected for them to lag the industry average growth %. Financial Analysis 101...

2) Easy. Because other companies in the industry were reporting % changes as high 108.6% (Subaru). Meanwhile, GM was posting negative numbers. So to someone looking at it completely out of a credit perspective, I understand why you would just try to focus on the 1.7% of sales. But the reality is that if they would have had marginal growth in that category, even on par with mature companies of similar size (Toyota had 26.1%) it would have had an impact on their overall number. Finally, the reasont his number was so low was because they are exiting that portfolio. As did both of the other Big 3. This change in philosophy is a major drag on a company's ability to grow, but GM still managed to get YoY growth of what was already the US's biggest firm.

So let me get this right... it's ok for you to ask me personal questions about whether I have kids and whatnot, but it is completely out of context for me to ask you for your professional credentials? I asked because I work with CPA's/Corp Accts every day. You don't use the same terminology or even approach analysis in the same way. So I was geniunly interested in your corporate accounting understanding. So I believe if you are going to continue to discredit my understanding of financial analysis, that your credentials absolutely add value to the conversation.

1. I agree on the growth in any given year. But, in this case, their market share has declined over the last 10 years. This wasn't a one year event. It is trend. In 2002, their market share was over 28% according to wardsauto. As the chart below shows, the entire US market in 2002 wss bigger than the market today. So, I tend to find the whole growth argument rather shallow. While growth for larger companies is harder, their market share has declined over ther last 10 years while the overall market declined.

To me, the bigger issue is the difference between trucks and cars. Growth of cars in 2012 was much higher than trucks. In 2002, unit car sales was 8.0m and trucks was 8.8m while today is 7.4 cars and 7.1 trucks. Trucks made up nearly 62% of 2012 sales for GM. With CAFE standards, car sales as a whole, could increase at a higer rate than truck sales over the next 7 years. GM sales today relies more on trucks than cars.

<a href="http://ycharts.com/indicators/auto_sales/chart#series=calc:,type:indicator,id:auto_sales&maxPoints=650&zoom=10&format=real"><img src="http://media.ycharts.com/charts/37fd4248d7e9690d0c3be5d5d3df1a39.png" alt="US Auto Sales Chart" /></a><p style="font-size: 10px;"><a href="http://ycharts.com/indicators/auto_sales">US Auto Sales</a> data by <a href="http://ycharts.com">YCharts</a></p>

This link has the data on 2002 sales.
Vehicle Technologies Program: Fact #714: February 13, 2012 Light Truck Sales on the Rise


2. This erosion in market share does not mean they are not profitable or a poorly run company. It was a simple fact. I never once alluded to the fact that I thought they were a poor investment. I was simply chiming in to state that while they were #1 in total unit sales, their dominance eroded in 2012 as it has over the last 10 years. That could be their strategy, but I was simply stating a fact and YOU were the one to rush to conclusions that I thought it was a symbol of their overall company strength. I never onced mentioned my thoughts on if they were worthy of investment.

3. I don't recall you ever really answering my question on children. If you did, I must have glanced over it.

 

[Black Irish]

I think this GM debate has run its course. Maybe we can move onto the next hot button political topic. Who wants to resume the immigration debate?

 

[phgreek]

No, they are built over there because that is where they will be sold and shipped internationally from. It's a cost savings measure that is absolutely necessary for a company that just decimated their foreign market focus of their company. Are you going to give them credit for the foriegn market shift that cost them a -87% decrease in foreign revenues? No?

I'm sure you have no problem with Toyota building plants here in the US for the same reason, right?

oh...I get it now...so business reasons make it a reasonable consideration...

Do liberals say that with a different dialect to make the foreign business case sound better to folks...is there a handshake I can learn???

 

[woolybug25]

oh...I get it now...so business reasons make it a reasonable consideration...

Do liberals say that with a different dialect to make the foreign business case sound better to folks...is there a handshake I can learn???

So in other words... you have nothing more to add to the argument? Just some random liberal jokes?


You didn't explain why you are upset that a US company would add a factory overseas if it not only made them more profitable, but didn't take one American job?

Maybe you just want them to be a crappy American company instead of a good American company? Sweet logic...

 

[phgreek]

So in other words... you have nothing more to add to the argument? Just some random liberal jokes?


You didn't explain why you are upset that a US company would add a factory overseas if it not only made them more profitable, but didn't take one American job?

Maybe you just want them to be a crappy American company instead of a good American company? Sweet logic...

yea...thats it...you got me again...

 

[woolybug25]

yea...thats it...you got me again...

I know I did. Thanks.

 

[DSully1995]

I think this GM debate has run its course. Maybe we can move onto the next hot button political topic. Who wants to resume the immigration debate?

Lets get it real tense in here , abortion?

 

[phgreek]

I know I did. Thanks.

mhmm...certainly not about someone being profitable...its about how someone being profitable is politicized and perceived...

When someone "expands" in a foreign market, and cuts deals with locals because they
couldn't survive in that market place doing it a stateside...well thats ok because those are jobs we never had...???

When people "outsource" (and they don't go out of business) is that a good thing?Outsourcing is a liberal/liberal meadia punching bag...however in nearly every case people with jobs remaining stateside still have a job BECAUCSE of the outsource...right?

If in the end two companies have the same amount of assets and production in a foreign market, and the same number employed locally...tell me a path and logic where its cool to villify one based on how they got there?

Joke make more sense now????

 

[woolybug25]

mhmm...certainly not about someone being profitable...its about how someone being profitable is politicized and perceived...

When someone "expands" in a foreign market, and cuts deals with locals because they
couldn't survive in that market place doing it a stateside...well thats ok because those are jobs we never had...???

When people "outsource" (and they don't go out of business) is that a good thing?Outsourcing is a liberal/liberal meadia punching bag...however in nearly every case people with jobs remaining stateside still have a job BECAUCSE of the outsource...right?

If in the end two companies have the same amount of assets and production in a foreign market, and the same number employed locally...tell me a path and logic where its cool to villify one based on how they got there?

Joke make more sense now????

Not really... again.... if they didn't put the plant in China, then it wouldn't have been built here. That is what Chrysler and Ford both chose to do with their exiting Asia portfolio. THEY DIDNT EXPAND INTO THE MARKET, THEY DOWNSIZED INTO IT. GM chose to instead save American jobs by sending that limited work to the plant in China and grow domestically through their US plants.

Do you think that no US company should ever put a plant in another country, regardless if the end result creates US jobs? That doesn't make a bit of sense and isn't how the real world works.

We live in a globalized economy whether you like it or not. You can cry that it's "all the liberals fault", but the reality is that GM is ran by a bunch of conservatives (look up their board). They understand that the best way to create American jobs is to create better earnings for their stockholders. I don't know what there is to get. By putting the plant in China, more Americans have jobs. The alternative would have been to not build the plant. If that is "crazy liberal logic", then I will take that all day over choosing to stifle a company's growth over some ridiculous one liner you heard on a political ad during the election.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...They understand that the best way to create American jobs is to create better earnings for their stockholders...

Not sure what the whole GM fight is over, but I agree with this 1000%

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I think this GM debate has run its course. Maybe we can move onto the next hot button political topic. Who wants to resume the immigration debate?

Sure. The idiots in DC are bending over backwards to give rights to people who have broken federal law (immigration reform) and take rights away from people who have not broken any laws (our imperial president's executive orders on guns).

 

[Buster Bluth]

Sure. The idiots in DC are bending over backwards to give rights to people who have broken federal law (immigration reform)

I think the debate is if the law should be changed.

Do you think you can round up 20 million illegal immigrants, and think it'd be wise to split families up while doing so?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I think the debate is if the law should be changed.

Do you think you can round up 20 million illegal immigrants, and think it'd be wise to split families up while doing so?

Maybe we should compare and contrast our immigration laws to the home countries of some of those people crossing our borders illegally. Check out what Mexico and some others do down there...some pretty tough stuff.

Regardless of the debate/ ideas/ practice/ how we handle this...those people came knowing well they were breaking the law and their families might come in contact with some sort of American law enforcement. Could be worse...remember the American hiker in Iran?

 

[RDU Irish]

Permanent green cards with no SS or medicare benefits but still pay FICA for their work here. It is incredibly unrealistic to even act like we are ever going to round up all illegals and ship them out. Your punishment for cheating is never becoming a citizen. If that ticks you off then go "home" and apply through the proper channels.

Going forward, deport the crap out of every illegal including denied citizenship for those born here "illegally." Also make it easier to naturalize and make work visas as easy as pie.

I don't understand why this is so hard?

 

[phgreek]

Not really... again.... if they didn't put the plant in China, then it wouldn't have been built here. That is what Chrysler and Ford both chose to do with their exiting Asia portfolio. THEY DIDNT EXPAND INTO THE MARKET, THEY DOWNSIZED INTO IT. GM chose to instead save American jobs by sending that limited work to the plant in China and grow domestically through their US plants.

Do you think that no US company should ever put a plant in another country, regardless if the end result creates US jobs? That doesn't make a bit of sense and isn't how the real world works.

We live in a globalized economy whether you like it or not. You can cry that it's "all the liberals fault", but the reality is that GM is ran by a bunch of conservatives (look up their board). They understand that the best way to create American jobs is to create better earnings for their stockholders. I don't know what there is to get. By putting the plant in China, more Americans have jobs. The alternative would have been to not build the plant. If that is "crazy liberal logic", then I will take that all day over choosing to stifle a company's growth over some ridiculous one liner you heard on a political ad during the election.

expansion...downsize...ok

was there a deal cut? was there an opportunity for a contract? Where'd it end up? Why not USA...because it was a business decision.

...is outsourcing a business decisiion that increases profitability, and hence, in most cases maintains US jobs?

why is one a punching bag if the result of both is american jobs (via profotability) are maintained?

 

[woolybug25]

expansion...downsize...ok

was there a deal cut? was there an opportunity for a contract? Where'd it end up? Why not USA...because it was a business decision.

...is outsourcing a business decisiion that increases profitability, and hence, in most cases maintains US jobs?

why is one a punching bag if the result of both is american jobs (via profotability) are maintained?

We have already addressed this and its in their financials. Go to the SEC site and read all you want on it. All three of the Big3 are exiting the majority of their foriegn portfolio. I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you when you have no background knowledge of the situation, nor any actual desire to learn about it.

Seriously, there is a ton of info out there on it. This wasn't outsourcing because the jobs didn't/wouldn't have existed without the move. Go read about for yourself and then come back with a logical argument instead of a bunch of hyperbole.

 

[phgreek]

We have already addressed this and its in their financials. Go to the SEC site and read all you want on it. All three of the Big3 are exiting the majority of their foriegn portfolio. I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you when you have no background knowledge of the situation, nor any actual desire to learn about it.

Seriously, there is a ton of info out there on it. This wasn't outsourcing because the jobs didn't/wouldn't have existed without the move. Go read about for yourself and then come back with a logical argument instead of a bunch of hyperbole.

this is pointless for sure...you want to give a dissertation about why I'm all effed up about Chrysler...when the point is a much broader one...shrug

 

[DSully1995]

Permanent green cards with no SS or medicare benefits but still pay FICA for their work here. It is incredibly unrealistic to even act like we are ever going to round up all illegals and ship them out. Your punishment for cheating is never becoming a citizen. If that ticks you off then go "home" and apply through the proper channels.

Going forward, deport the crap out of every illegal including denied citizenship for those born here "illegally." Also make it easier to naturalize and make work visas as easy as pie.

I don't understand why this is so hard?

Latinos are key to everyones chances at winning elections, Republicans dont have blacks or(to a lesser extent) women, they need to win over latinos, while not alientating their party base.

Every american does benefit aswell from illegals, theyll work hard for less...( plus I dont know the major disadvantages other than the moral stance, if anyone really looked into this.)