General Motors: The money pit

[Shady]

Great news taxpayers!

GM's Volt: The ugly math of low sales, high costs

Nearly two years after the introduction of the path-breaking plug-in hybrid, GM is still losing as much as $49,000 on each Volt it builds, according to estimates provided to Reuters by industry analysts and manufacturing experts

"I don't see how General Motors will ever get its money back on that vehicle," countered Sandy Munro, president of Michigan-based Munro & Associates, which performs detailed tear-down analyses of vehicles and components for global manufacturers and the U.S. government.

AP

Apparently this is what "saving" GM and Chrysler looks like. Pouring billions of dollars down money pits, run by executives and unions that have absolutely no clue as to how to turn things around and turn a profit. Which is interesting, because, as far as I know, other car companies, such as Ford and Toyota produce hyprids that are a lot less expensive, and that didn't need a massive billion dollar bailout, in which tax payers will never see their money back again. So 4 years later, why are we still putting up with this crap?

[waldo]

Apparently this is what "saving" GM and Chrysler looks like. Pouring billions of dollars down money pits, run by executives and unions that have absolutely no clue as to how to turn things around and turn a profit.

have you ever shown any critical thinking capability... ever? Even if one accepted your parroting of the Reuters article, you've applied your bluster against one single car/model to the whole of GM. Last I read, GM was once again profitable... as the world's number one automaker again. Hey did you hear: Osama Bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive!!!

but really, critical thinker Shady... have you ever heard of start-up R&D/development costs; costs that gradually diminish over time as sales increase? The formal GM response:

Reuters’ estimate of the current loss per unit for each Volt sold is grossly wrong, in part because the reporters allocated product development costs across the number of Volts sold instead of allocating across the lifetime volume of the program, which is how business operates. The Reuters’ numbers become more wrong with each Volt sold.

In addition, our core research into battery cells, battery packs, controls, electric motors, regenerative braking and other technologies has applications across multiple current and future products, which will help spread costs over a much higher volume, thereby reducing manufacturing and purchasing costs. This will eventually lead to profitability for the Volt and future electrified vehicles.

Every investment in technology that GM makes is designed to have a payoff for our customers, to meet future regulatory requirements and add to the bottom line. The Volt is no different, even if it takes longer to become profitable.

GM is at the forefront of the electrification of the automobile because we are developing innovative technologies and building an enthusiastic – and growing – customer base for vehicles like the Volt.

[BubberMiley]

I agree that if the GOP wants to win Ohio and Michigan, they're going to have to keep fighting to put GM out of business.

[Shady]

have you ever shown any critical thinking capability... ever? Even if one accepted your parroting of the Reuters article, you've applied your bluster against one single car/model to the whole of GM. Last I read, GM was once again profitable... as the world's number one automaker again. Hey did you hear: Osama Bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive!!!

but really, critical thinker Shady... have you ever heard of start-up R&D/development costs; costs that gradually diminish over time as sales increase? The formal GM response:

You mean the official GM response defends their business practices? I'm shocked I tells ya. Shocked.

[dre]

You mean the official GM response defends their business practices? I'm shocked I tells ya. Shocked.

The volt is no suprise. Its a forray until a whole new space that hasnt been well developed yet. It took a while before anyone made money on hyrbids as well. Competitors to the Volt such as the Nissan Leaf are also losing money and sales figure so far are not impressive.

That doesnt mean the volt is a bad idea. We will know that in a few years.

[waldo]

have you ever shown any critical thinking capability... ever? Even if one accepted your parroting of the Reuters article, you've applied your bluster against one single car/model to the whole of GM. Last I read, GM was once again profitable... as the world's number one automaker again. Hey did you hear: Osama Bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive!!!

but really, critical thinker Shady... have you ever heard of start-up R&D/development costs; costs that gradually diminish over time as sales increase? The formal GM response:

You mean the official GM response defends their business practices? I'm shocked I tells ya. Shocked.

just read the GM response Shady... just read it - it can't hurt you! But really, just what, as you say, "business practices" did you imply GM is defending? Do you mean the industry wide, standard business practice, that holds to research and development costs being amortized over an entire product cycle... that one? That business practice that wasn't recognized/applied in the calculations followed by the Reuters article author... that one, Shady? Keep digging your hole deeper Shady!

but really, one has to look at the timing of this article. The Romney campaign is getting whipped, big time, by the Obama campaign leveraging the auto-industry bailout, particularly the heightened focus on GM. So... all of a sudden... out of the blue, this Reuters article appears and gets blown far and wide by the usual Republican water carriers. I guess someone from the Romney campaign called in a Reuters favour, hey Shady?

[jbg]

So 4 years later, why are we still putting up with this crap?

Ask George Bush and Barack Hussein Obama. Edited September 11, 2012 by jbg

[Shady]

Competitors to the Volt such as the Nissan Leaf are also losing money and sales figure so far are not impressive.

We didn't bailout Nissan, and Nissan doesn't have an exemption which allows them to not pay any taxes for several years.

just read the GM response Shady... just read it - it can't hurt you!

Wow, you're all of a sudden pretty trusting of what corporations tell us huh? Are you going to be applying this new found trust across all industries, or just the ones that suit your leftwing ideology? I'm guessing the latter.

But really, just what, as you say, "business practices" did you imply GM is defending? Do you mean the industry wide, standard business practice, that holds to research and development costs being amortized over an entire product cycle... that one? That business practice that wasn't recognized/applied in the calculations followed by the Reuters article author... that one, Shady? Keep digging your hole deeper Shady!

The only deep hole is the one in the pockets of tax payers, subsidizing this bullcrap. Just think of the independent non-partisan studies GM disagrees with as peer review. You'll find it much more accepting.

but really, one has to look at the timing of this article. The Romney campaign is getting whipped, big time, by the Obama campaign leveraging the auto-industry bailout, particularly the heightened focus on GM. So... all of a sudden... out of the blue, this Reuters article appears and gets blown far and wide by the usual Republican water carriers. I guess someone from the Romney campaign called in a Reuters favour, hey Shady?

I'm not sure why you're choosing to insert politics in this. I didn't mention Obama at all. In fact, Bush and Harper are just as much to blame.

[jbg]

Wow, you're all of a sudden pretty trusting of what corporations tell us huh? Are you going to be applying this new found trust across all industries, or just the ones that suit your leftwing ideology? I'm guessing the latter.

I guess GM doesn't contribute much to the carbon footprint if it doesn't make many cars.

[Shady]

I guess GM doesn't contribute much to the carbon footprint if it doesn't make many cars.

Very true!

[BubberMiley]

Once the Republicans are done complaining that GM is alive, are they going to complain that Osama bin Laden is dead?

[kimmy]

The only deep hole is the one in the pockets of tax payers, subsidizing this bullcrap. Just think of the independent non-partisan studies GM disagrees with as peer review.

GM is posting profits in the billions. Why all the anxiety over this one model of car?

BTW, GM's response makes sense. If KimmyCorp invests $1 million developing the new Widget2000, and you assess the profitability after the first widget is sold for $10, then you could say that KimmyCorp has lost $999,990 on every widget sold, but after I sell another widget, it's $499,990 per widget, and after I've sold 100,000 widgets I have broken even. In a few years when I've sold 500,000 widgets, the premise that I was once losing nearly a million dollars per widget sold becomes completely irrelevant.

GM has invested a lot of money in developing new technologies for this project, and that investment isn't going to pay off overnight, nor was it expected to. The technology they are developing for this product will pay off for them for a long time to come.

-k

Edited September 11, 2012 by kimmy

[The_Squid]

Ask George Bush and Barack Hussein Obama.

Why do you use his middle name?

[kimmy]

Why do you use his middle name?

So that people don't confuse him with his father, Barack Herbert Walker Obama.

-k

[jbg]

Why do you use his middle name?

Why, is it something to be ashamed of? Didn't Pierre Elliot Trudeau use his?

[msj]

So that people don't confuse him with his father, Barack Herbert Walker Obama.

-k

[Shakeyhands]

Why, is it something to be ashamed of? Didn't Pierre Elliot Trudeau use his?

I like it better when you don't act like a troll JBG.

[jbg]

I like it better when you don't act like a troll JBG.

How is that trolling? To point out that we both have had leaders that liberally used their middle names?

[The_Squid]

How is that trolling? To point out that we both have had leaders that liberally used their middle names?

I've never seen or heard of anyone using Obama's middle name other than the far right.

I'm just curious why you do that? It's not a difficult or a trick question.....

[waldo]

Ask George Bush and Barack Hussein Obama.

Why do you use his middle name?

of course, it was more than just a pointed, purposeful use of Obama's middle name... it was a pointed, purposeful use that also pointedly and purposely highlighted the middle name by a pointed and purposeful selection of the html font size formatting tag.

Ask George Bush and Barack

Hussein Obama.

I've never seen or heard of anyone using Obama's middle name other than the far right.

I'm just curious why you do that? It's not a difficult or a trick question.....

yes, clearly; your question is straight-forward... not difficult and not a trick. I trust you/we will receive a response that pointedly and purposely advises why Obama's middle name was pointedly and purposely used... and pointedly and purposely highlighted.

[waldo]

Wow, you're all of a sudden pretty trusting of what corporations tell us huh? Are you going to be applying this new found trust across all industries, or just the ones that suit your leftwing ideology? I'm guessing the latter.

your response is weak Shady... weak! Why would you... why do you, challenge GM's factual statement on the standard industry practice that amortizes R&D costs over a respective products full life cycle?

The only deep hole is the one in the pockets of tax payers, subsidizing this bullcrap. Just think of the independent non-partisan studies GM disagrees with as peer review. You'll find it much more accepting.

your response is weaker Shady... weaker! Please read, digest and assimilate MLW member, 'kimmy's', dumbed-down (for you) explanation of the KimmyCorp investment cycle and broader company-wide leveraging of new technologies.

I'm not sure why you're choosing to insert politics in this. I didn't mention Obama at all. In fact, Bush and Harper are just as much to blame.

your response is weakest Shady... weakest! As you are fully aware, your linked article immediately became a platform launch for the anti-Obama crowd you live & breathe. Pointing out the timing of the article to you is inconvenient... for you... as it comes out of the blue as a most convenient foil for Romney acolytes to attempt to dampen the Obama campaign's most successful leveraging of the GM/auto-bailout talking point.

[GostHacked]

And to think that GM had it right with the EV1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1

That was 10 years ago. And it was axed. Dumb dumb dumb.

[Black Dog]

I'm shocked that conservatives and the people like Shady who ape their every talking point would get this one so very wrong.

Why GM is getting their money's worth with the Volt

Edited September 11, 2012 by Black Dog

[jbg]

yes, clearly; your question is straight-forward... not difficult and not a trick. I trust you/we will receive a response that pointedly and purposely advises why Obama's middle name was pointedly and purposely used... and pointedly and purposely highlighted.

For the same reason Pierre Elliot Trudeau used his middle name; to bifurcate his heritage. Obama wants to pander to the leftists and Arabists among the population.

[Wilber]

I commend GM for sticking their neck out and developing the Volt technology. It's the kind of thing we need going forward and I think it will be ultimately successfull. I hope they end up making a ton of money on it.