[AMERICA 123]

From the Detroit Free Press - great article (long) covers all sides without all the artificial negativity.


http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080802/BUSINESS01/808020324

Investors unfazed by GM's huge loss
Cuts under way soften impact of $15.5-billion blow on shares

BY KATIE MERX • FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER • August 2, 2008

Despite posting the third-worst loss in its 100-year history, General Motors Corp. seemed Friday to have Wall Street's confidence that recently announced plans would be sufficient to carry the company through to better times in 2010.

 

[1931Chevy]

The problem as I see it is that for how long have they been making cuts so that the looses dont look that bad , 5, 6 years now

 

[psece]

There is probably a majority that will know that they are close to hitting bottom. There are also those that aren't going to sell because they have already lost too much, so why not ride it out. Thus, not that much change.

 

[tom3]

A matter of timing, buy low and sell high. I'd guess we'll see a bounce in the coming weeks but by the end of the year the stock will be in the $7 range, if not lower.

 

[plane]

Ok, I went to the DetNews this morning.
Front and center was GM versus Toyota sales numbers.
Looks like even the Detroit news isn't immune from playing adjusted against unadjusted numbers.

Beautiful.

 

[AMERICA 123]

Ok, I went to the DetNews this morning.
Front and center was GM versus Toyota sales numbers.
Looks like even the Detroit news isn't immune from playing adjusted against unadjusted numbers.

Beautiful.

You know plane - I can see why you would say that - thousands of articles worldwide have/did report - 13.2% as the dsr adjusted percentage. ( mostly on the 1st )

I posted one up here myself from Reuters - which I'm going to have to find and correct - because it is in fact wrong .... -13.2% is the industry number on a non adjusted basis.

The one nobody wants to talk about is that the industry number on a dsr adjusted percentage basis is -19.87% - which is why there has been this group think to present many numbers on a non adjusted basis - looks better.

There are a few out there mixing it up - by using the larger negative numbers that a dsr percentage gives for everyone - and yes some are using that in regards to GM, Ford, and Chrysler while using non adjusted ie less negative for everyone else.

The Detroit News is, I believe, using non adjusted numbers correctly - on the one article I checked anyway - and if my article posted earlier mislead you - my apologies in advance.

It's getting to the point you have to check even the most basic numbers yourself.

Anyway, I've got to find that Reuters post I used and correct the text.

 

[fp115]

I think the main reason it didn't affect investors is because GM was already anticipating this loss since the July 15th broadcast.

 

[EldoFan]

There is probably a majority that will know that they are close to hitting bottom. There are also those that aren't going to sell because they have already lost too much, so why not ride it out. Thus, not that much change.

Pretty sound logic there, I'd go with that theory too :yup:

 

[2002 Caddy]

From the Detroit Free Press - great article (long) covers all sides without all the artificial negativity.


Investors unfazed by GM's huge loss
Cuts under way soften impact of $15.5-billion blow on shares

BY KATIE MERX • FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER • August 2, 2008

"Unfazed"!
The stock lost almost 8% in one day... and sunk briefly into the 9's
Katie decides we are unfazed since we haven't got back to the 8's... Three more days like Friday and we will be in the 7's

She also fails to note that we have pretty much completely "eaten" up all of the "accounting gains" that cancelling the dividend brought... If you compared apples to apples and what the stock would be trading if we still had a dividend... we are back at the 52 week low.

 

[LeSabre]

Despite posting the third-worst loss in its 100-year history, General Motors Corp. seemed Friday to have Wall Street's confidence that recently announced plans would be sufficient to carry the company through to better times in 2010.

- (From the article & also the quoted section on the starting post of this thread).

I am wondering if this 3rd-worst (record?)loss along w/the other 2 high losses were within the last 7-8yrs? Therefore having happened under Wagoners'
leadership.

The problem as I see it is that for how long have they been making cuts so that the looses dont look that bad , 5, 6 years now

I think they have been making cuts since things started getting bad over the last 5-7yrs & this is also while Wagoner has been CEO.

On both counts, not good. The Board/Bystanders of Directors should wake up & smell the burning coffe, if you take my meaning. Rick Wagoner needs to go & NOT replaced w/another beancounter!!

 

[2002 Caddy]

- (From the article & also the quoted section on the starting post of this thread).

I am wondering if this 3rd-worst (record?)loss along w/the other 2 high losses were within the last 7-8yrs? Therefore having happened under Wagoners'
leadership.


I think they have been making cuts since things started getting bad over the last 5-7yrs & this is also while Wagoner has been CEO.

On both counts, not good. The Board/Bystanders of Directors should wake up & smell the burning coffe, if you take my meaning. Rick Wagoner needs to go & NOT replaced w/another beancounter!!

I'll have to check, but from memory he was only in charge for #1 and #3 I think he was either the CFO or the Head of GM Canada when #2 happened

 

[Buickman]

I'll have to check, but from memory he was only in charge for #1 and #3 I think he was either the CFO or the Head of GM Canada when #2 happened

it was under Roger back in early eighties when they assigned a present value to pension liabilities.

 

[montrealvue]

You'd have to be blind to not know huge losses were on the way. Investors had a pretty good idea GM was sliding fast. It has been apparent for a few years.