 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / General Car Topics / January 2009GM's sales fall, ending claim as world's largest automaker
GM's sales fall, ending claim as world's largest automaker Chrissie Thompson Automotive News January 21, 2009 - 9:04 am ET UPDATED: 1/21/09 9:55 a.m. ET General Motors said worldwide sales fell 10.8 percent in 2008, ending its 77-year claim as the world's largest automaker. GM sold 8.36 million vehicles last year, putting it about 616,000 units behind the 8.97 million reported by Toyota Motor Corp. Tuesday. The 2008 results cap an advance by Toyota that has seen the Japanese automaker overcome a 3 million deficit since the start of the decade, fueled by gains in the United States. In 2008, both automakers posted sales declines. At the time of the announcement, just before 9 a.m. ET today, GM defined itself on its Web site as "the annual global industry sales leader for 77 years.'' GM President Fritz Henderson had said the previous evening that retaining the title wasn't "terribly important," to him. He told the Automotive News World Congress that it's more critical that GM, which hasn't posted a profit since 2004 and has tapped $4 billion in U.S. loans to pay its bills, is strong financially. Toyota's decline Toyota said its sales across the group fell 4 percent in 2008, dragged down by sharp declines in North America, Europe and Japan. GM fell 21.1 percent in North America, the biggest of its four sales regions, and 6.5 percent in its No. 2 market, Europe. The company gained 3.2 percent in its Latin America, Africa, Middle East region -- for a fifth straight record -- and 2.7 percent in the Asia-Pacific territory. Car sales worldwide plunged in the final quarter amid a financial crisis that forced most automakers to slash production. GM's fourth-quarter sales volume dropped 26.2 percent. In the United States, the single-biggest market for both automakers, GM tumbled 22.7 percent last year, while Toyota was down 15.4 percent. As of 2007, Automotive News ranked Toyota No. 1 in worldwide sales. In that year, GM included 516,435 Wuling brand vehicles in its global tally. But GM owns only 34 percent of the Chinese company that builds Wuling products, SAIC-GM-Wuling Automobile Co. Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp. owns 50.1 percent. Automotive News counts only sales of majority-owned subsidiaries in an automaker's global total. Reuters contributed to this report GM has decided there is more profit in taking tax payers money as they can't seem to make cars that sell for a profit. > GM's sales fall, ending claim as world's largest automaker > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > Reuters contributed to this report > GM's sales fall, ending claim as world's largest automaker > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > Reuters contributed to this report There will be some who can continue claimning that GM is giving away more taxpayer paid cars in some remote area than anyone else. >> GM's sales fall, ending claim as world's largest automaker >> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > There will be some who can continue claimning that GM is giving away > more taxpayer paid cars in some remote area than anyone else. No doubt Mikey will spin it that way as the self appointed GM apologist. GM does have a very large begging bowl.  SignatureCivis Romanus Sum I don't spin anything, facts are facts one can not spin facts. What I do comment on are the numerous opinions presented as facts, by those in the NGs that don't know what they are talking about There is nothing to spin Toyota in 2008 outsold GM worldwide and GM outsold Toyota in the biggest market where both earn their greatest profits, by three quarters of a million vehicles and that is a fact not an opinion. LOL >>> GM's sales fall, ending claim as world's largest automaker >>> [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > No doubt Mikey will spin it that way as the self appointed GM apologist. > GM does have a very large begging bowl. > I don't spin anything, facts are facts one can not spin facts. What I do > comment on are the numerous opinions presented as facts, by those in the NGs > that don't know what they are talking about > > There is nothing to spin Toyota in 2008 outsold GM Nice to see you finally admitted that GM is going down and will eventually be passed by everyone. Even when GM is gone the markets will not remember it very long. There will not even be a shortage of cars. Perhaps in your world but not in the real world LOL On 21 Jan, 18:02, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > I don't spin anything, facts are facts one can not spin facts. What I do > comment on are the numerous opinions presented as facts, by those in the > NGs > that don't know what they are talking about > > There is nothing to spin Toyota in 2008 outsold GM Nice to see you finally admitted that GM is going down and will eventually be passed by everyone. Even when GM is gone the markets will not remember it very long. There will not even be a shortage of cars. > Perhaps in your world but not in the real world LOL Gosi is right. You might want to check in your lunch bucket economics; get a real book on supply, demand and economics. And not one not fostered by union rhetoric and bullshit economics. For if the union had any credibility in economics, you have to ask yourself then why they let this happen and fire them all! > On 21 Jan, 18:02, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: >> I don't spin anything, facts are facts one can not spin facts. What I do [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Even when GM is gone the markets will not remember it very long. > There will not even be a shortage of cars. Get real, Gosi has never been 'right' about anything. LOL >> Perhaps in your world but not in the real world LOL > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> Even when GM is gone the markets will not remember it very long. >> There will not even be a shortage of cars. > Get real, Gosi has never been 'right' about anything. GM is the greatest company ever LOL > > Perhaps in your world but not in the real world LOL > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Even when GM is gone the markets will not remember it very long. > > There will not even be a shortage of cars. General Motors hasn’t made money on its core auto business since 2004 - and did nothing. Same cars, same talk, same mismanagement. GM is in the government’s intensive care, hangs on the tax payer’s money drip, and still hasn’t changed. "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" On 21 Jan, 19:03, "Canuck57" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Even when GM is gone the markets will not remember it very long. > > There will not even be a shortage of cars. General Motors hasn’t made money on its core auto business since 2004 - and did nothing. Same cars, same talk, same mismanagement. GM is in the government’s intensive care, hangs on the tax payer’s money drip, and still hasn’t changed. "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" On 21 Jan, 19:03, "Canuck57" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Even when GM is gone the markets will not remember it very long. > > There will not even be a shortage of cars. General Motors hasn’t made money on its core auto business since 2004 - and did nothing. Same cars, same talk, same mismanagement. GM is in the government’s intensive care, hangs on the tax payer’s money drip, and still hasn’t changed. On 21 Jan, 19:03, "Canuck57" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Even when GM is gone the markets will not remember it very long. > > There will not even be a shortage of cars. General Motors hasn’t made money on its core auto business since 2004 - and did nothing. Same cars, same talk, same mismanagement. GM is in the government’s intensive care, hangs on the tax payer’s money drip, and still hasn’t changed. --- They had to restate those earnings? Or am I thinking 2005? I know they lost a class action in December to the tune of $300M or so. In any case, you are right, too much mismanagement for too long...flush... "That uniformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply" > On 21 Jan, 19:03, "Canuck57" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote: >> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > lost a class action in December to the tune of $300M or so. In any case, > you are right, too much mismanagement for too long...flush... > General Motors hasn’t made money on its core auto business since 2004 > - and did nothing. Or so they say. With various tax credits and deductions it's quite possible to show a loss even while making money. His uninformed or misinformed comment does not deserve a reply >> General Motors hasn’t made money on its core auto business since 2004 >> - and did nothing. > > Or so they say. With various tax credits and deductions it's quite > possible to show a loss even while making money. Not quite. If one has a million dollar business expense deduction from gross income, lets say for R&D, that may be true. However if one has a million dollar business expense deduction from gross income, for say a structural loss, would it not be better to NOT have a structural loss and retain the profit remaining after paying the 43% corporate income tax that would be due on a million dollars? I would prefer the have the $570,000 to use in my business >> General Motors hasn’t made money on its core auto business since 2004 >> - and did nothing. > > Or so they say. With various tax credits and deductions it's quite > possible to show a loss even while making money. On 21 Jan, 18:02, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > I don't spin anything, facts are facts one can not spin facts. What I do > comment on are the numerous opinions presented as facts, by those in the > NGs > that don't know what they are talking about > > There is nothing to spin Toyota in 2008 outsold GM Nice to see you finally admitted that GM is going down and will eventually be passed by everyone. Even when GM is gone the markets will not remember it very long. There will not even be a shortage of cars. ---------- Quite true. And even if GM disappeared completely, which is unlikely even in a chapter 11, any lost sales would go to Ford, Toyota and others, reducing their layoff plans. Since this is an industry excess capacity issue at the moment, letting one or two go would help the other 6 or so stay solvant and productive. Today it is a buyers market. Anyone who needs a new or used cars can almost steal one today. If one or more do go under, prices will skyrocket if the excess production is lost. ;) > On 21 Jan, 18:02, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: >> I don't spin anything, facts are facts one can not spin facts. What I do [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > issue at the moment, letting one or two go would help the other 6 or so > stay solvant and productive. >I don't spin anything, facts are facts one can not spin facts. What I do >comment on are the numerous opinions presented as facts, by those in the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > profits, by three quarters of a million vehicles and that is a fact not an > opinion. LOL Yes, but GM is losing market faster in their own home turf. And every one sold at a unsustainable loss. And I can't believe GM quality has improved, it has likely degraded as part suppliers are having finacial issues because they are not paid. So missed or lower grade shipments must be talking a toll. Some suppliers are going belly up and the lines come Feb will not run for long. >>>> GM's sales fall, ending claim as world's largest automaker >>>> [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] >> No doubt Mikey will spin it that way as the self appointed GM apologist. >> GM does have a very large begging bowl. If your opinion is that GM sales vehicles are "sold at a unsustainable loss," then your opinion must be that Toyota is doing likewise, since they too had a loss in 2008. LOL >>I don't spin anything, facts are facts one can not spin facts. What I do >>comment on are the numerous opinions presented as facts, by those in the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Yes, but GM is losing market faster in their own home turf. And every one > sold at a unsustainable loss. > If your opinion is that GM sales vehicles are "sold at a unsustainable > loss," then your opinion must be that Toyota is doing likewise, since they [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> Yes, but GM is losing market faster in their own home turf. And every one >> sold at a unsustainable loss. Toyota makes money on individual sales, big difference from the Detroit Fumblers. SignatureCivis Romanus Sum > If your opinion is that GM sales vehicles are "sold at a unsustainable > loss," then your opinion must be that Toyota is doing likewise, since > they too had a loss in 2008. LOL LOL into bankruptcy. Toyota isn't bankrupt and will not wait 30+ years to fix the issue. GM is going down for the count. I hear they want more tax payers money. GM managment now thinks ripping off tax payers is more profitable than making cars. LOL. >>>I don't spin anything, facts are facts one can not spin facts. What I do >>>comment on are the numerous opinions presented as facts, by those in the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> Yes, but GM is losing market faster in their own home turf. And every >> one sold at a unsustainable loss. >> If your opinion is that GM sales vehicles are "sold at a unsustainable >> loss," then your opinion must be that Toyota is doing likewise, since [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > managment now thinks ripping off tax payers is more profitable than making > cars. LOL. Now that Obama is in office, he doesn't have to pander any more. Hopefully no more bailout money will be forthcoming. What's needed now is demand creation. People without jobs don't buy new cars. Those with jobs are being cautious. Some sort of a federal tax credit for people that buy vehicles _manufactured in the U.S._ might help, i.e. a tax credit spread out over a few tax years, say $1500/year for three years. No credit for vehicles manufactured in Asia, Europe, Canada, Mexico, or South America. We're ready for another vehicle, the 13 y.o. Toyota will go to the teenager unit if we get something new. A U.S. built Toyota, Honda, or Subaru would be something we'd buy if there was some incentive. It's not that we wouldn't buy a GM, Ford, or Chrysler, but we went to the auto show in San Jose a couple of weeks ago and nothing from the big 3 excited us. >>> If your opinion is that GM sales vehicles are "sold at a unsustainable >>> loss," then your opinion must be that Toyota is doing likewise, since [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > out over a few tax years, say $1500/year for three years. No credit for > vehicles manufactured in Asia, Europe, Canada, Mexico, or South America. Protectionism will not work. Then maybe countries like Canada & Mexico should put a $5000 tax on US made? Hey, why limit it to autos? See the point? Oh, prices will go up big time and your vehicle will be of a poorer quality. > We're ready for another vehicle, the 13 y.o. Toyota will go to the > teenager unit if we get something new. A U.S. built Toyota, Honda, or > Subaru would be something we'd buy if there was some incentive. It's not > that we wouldn't buy a GM, Ford, or Chrysler, but we went to the auto show > in San Jose a couple of weeks ago and nothing from the big 3 excited us. If it was a 13 year old GM or Chylser, it would not make it that long for the dump/recycle. If you are spending the kind of cash they want for these things, then I expect better value, this a Toyota or Honda, good choices. I bought a F150 because where I live you see quite a few that are 20 years old. Even saw a F100 the other day that looked like 1966, ya it was a rust bucket but that vehicle lasted. F100 was made in Brazil according to Wiki. Friend has a 1989 Toyota, 250,000 mi on the odo, still going strong. Don't see too much GM on the road in 15-20 years of age. If you do they are restored types. > >>> If your opinion is that GM sales vehicles are "sold at a unsustainable > >>> loss," then your opinion must be that Toyota is doing likewise, since [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Don't see too much GM on the road in 15-20 years of age. If you do they are > restored types. Now that Cuba is going off the most wanted list I guess you will be seing a lot of old GM cars in operation. So what? I have a 1971 Pinto with nearly 300,000 miles on the ordinal drive train, still going strong. Perhaps if you look out your front window, rather than the rear, your opinion might change LOL . > Friend has a 1989 Toyota, 250,000 mi on the odo, still going strong. > > Don't see too much GM on the road in 15-20 years of age. If you do they > are > restored types. > So what? I have a 1971 Pinto with nearly 300,000 miles on the ordinal > drive train, still going strong. Now that is a bullshit claim I would have to see verified by a third party I trust. Then you could enter it into the Guiness Book of records. You sound like CAW/UAW on the lam. Like I care what someone in a NG chooses to believe. Do a search of one of the Pinto Owners clubs, there are many some with more miles. I would have to see it verified by a third party that your mother and father were married when you were born ;) >> So what? I have a 1971 Pinto with nearly 300,000 miles on the ordinal >> drive train, still going strong. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You sound like CAW/UAW on the lam. > Like I care what someone in a NG chooses to believe. Do a search of one of > the Pinto Owners clubs, there are many some with more miles. Oh, I don't doubt some of the very few that reamin for nostalgia have more miles on the ODO. With enough engines, transmissions and differential rebuilds any care can go a million miles. Your claim is 300,000+ without any major work, which is bullshit. At least shopping at the dump makes it easy. > I would have to see it verified by a third party that your mother and > father were married when you were born ;) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >> You sound like CAW/UAW on the lam. > You sound like CAW/UAW on the lam. What happened to "lamb"? On Jan 22, 8:28 pm, "Canuck57" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote: > You sound like CAW/UAW on the lam. What happened to "lamb"? --------- Unlike some of the brain dead in these here news groups, I adapt. Since I was never on the lam (or lamb) I never knew it was different. Somene pointed out the difference. Mind you, I still suspect some CAW/UAW pro GMers are both on the lam and in the lamb. >> So what? I have a 1971 Pinto with nearly 300,000 miles on the >> ordinal drive train, still going strong. > > Now that is a bullshit claim I would have to see verified by a third > party I trust. Then you could enter it into the Guiness Book of > records. I owned two Pintos, a 1972 and a 1973. I never drove either to 300k miles, but I am confident it was easily done. I bought the 1972 Pinto new in 1972 and drove it to college for three years. During that time I autocrosses it at least 15 times a year, drove all over the eastern US, beat the crap out of it camping, etc. Only problem in all that time was a bad starter that I burned up because I bought a tank of gas that was really 50% water. And even that was fixed under warranty. When I graduated from college I sold the car to my parents, and they gave it to my younger Sister. She drove it for another three years, and then I bought it back to use as a commuter car. The car didn't have A/C, and I decided it was too hot in NC to drive without A/C, so I sold it. The '72 Pinto was in my family for 8 years and around 150k miles. In all that time it needed one starter and one timing belt. The day I sold it, it ran perfectly. The 1973 Pinto was my older sister's car. She drove it for 7 years. It so happened that I had an accident with my main car just as she was getting ready to replace her Pinto with a new car (a Honda Accord). Instead of renting a car while mine was being repaired, I just bought hers to use. I kept it for about 6 months. Eventually, a co-worker bought the car from me for his kids to drive. He had three different kids drive the car over a period of 7 years (got them all through college). When the last one was out of college, he sold it. I am not sure how many miles were on the car when he sold it (over 200k), but it was still in good condition. He was a Chrysler fan, but even he commented on how tough the car was. Ed OK. If these Pinto vehicles are so reliable, and if I recall, not much to make. How come GM does not continue to make them? >>> So what? I have a 1971 Pinto with nearly 300,000 miles on the ordinal >>> drive train, still going strong. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Ed > OK. If these Pinto vehicles are so reliable, and if I recall, not much to > make. How come GM does not continue to make them? Because it was a Ford? Just guessing. SignatureReal men don't text. > So what? I have a 1971 Pinto with nearly 300,000 miles on the ordinal drive > train, still going strong. Just like my neighbor's Mazda Protege. That may be your opinion and you can buy what ever you wish, if you can afford a new vehicle, but people are buying millions of cars and trucks, just not as many millions as in 2007. In fact while car sales were down in November and December over October, SUVs and Light Truck sales in December were up over November Just for the record Toyota had and operating loss in 2008 just like GM, but GM sold nearly a million more vehicle in the US. . >>> If your opinion is that GM sales vehicles are "sold at a unsustainable >>> loss," then your opinion must be that Toyota is doing likewise, since [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > that we wouldn't buy a GM, Ford, or Chrysler, but we went to the auto show > in San Jose a couple of weeks ago and nothing from the big 3 excited us. > That may be your opinion and you can buy what ever you wish, if you can > afford a new vehicle, but people are buying millions of cars and trucks, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Just for the record Toyota had and operating loss in 2008 just like GM, > but GM sold nearly a million more vehicle in the US. Toyota loses in a year what GM loses in 2 weeks. Your point? >>>> If your opinion is that GM sales vehicles are "sold at a unsustainable >>>> loss," then your opinion must be that Toyota is doing likewise, since [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> show in San Jose a couple of weeks ago and nothing from the big 3 excited >> us. You forgot to say in my opinion LOL >> If your opinion is that GM sales vehicles are "sold at a unsustainable >> loss," then your opinion must be that Toyota is doing likewise, since [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >>> Yes, but GM is losing market faster in their own home turf. And every >>> one sold at a unsustainable loss. > You forgot to say in my opinion LOL That is a fact. Hahahahahaha. So has UAW/CAW had their meeting notice? The February deadline is approaching. >>> If your opinion is that GM sales vehicles are "sold at a unsustainable >>> loss," then your opinion must be that Toyota is doing likewise, since [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >>>> Yes, but GM is losing market faster in their own home turf. And every >>>> one sold at a unsustainable loss. > GM's sales fall, ending claim as world's largest automaker > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > GM sold 8.36 million vehicles last year, putting it about 616,000 > units behind the 8.97 million reported by Toyota Motor Corp. Tuesday I don't doubt it. I contacted three dealerships near me to inquire about either a new Suburban or a new Malibu. (I own an '06 Avalanche with just under 50K miles and a '05 Saturn Vue with just over 40K miles.) I figured I had a $3K incentive from my GM card, plus $1000 customer loyalty cash plus whatever internet deals they'd be giving. In all cases, the internet sales staff refused to give me a quote on a car/truck over the phone and insisted I come in to "negotiate" the price. Also they kept talking "payments" instead of "price." I told them where they should stick the negotiation. In both my current car/truck and previous ones, I got the price prior to coming into the dealership. If they're going to try and rook me into the dealership for "negotiation" then they're f.cked. Signaturewww.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org Clean out a corner of your mind and creativity will instantly fill it. - Dee Hock >> GM's sales fall, ending claim as world's largest automaker >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > coming into the dealership. If they're going to try and rook me into the > dealership for "negotiation" then they're f.cked. Yep, you have to hate the BS that goes on in car sales. I too was a cash buyer for the last vehicles I bought, and the dumb idiots insist on payments. The reason they do this as the finance manager and dealership gets an incentive for the sale if it is mortgaged. But if you are a cash buyer, insist on 0%. Or better yet, negotiate price first, then financing. You would think cash starved GM/Chrylser and others would want cash and discount for it but that isn't the case. My last deal was 7% below invoice and 0% for 4 years. For D3 and most, never pay more than 4% below invoice, and if they will not show you invoice then walk. They say Japanese will not negotiate, well this is wrong in my experiece. I offered invoice -3% in 1995 for a new Nissan and they wouldn't budge. A week later they called and said they would take the offer if I was still interested. I did. For Canada. It also does not hurt to review American pricing at http://edmunds.com and http://carmax.com as a reference. In the last 5 years I notice what I will call MSRP/Invoice of convenience. That is, jacked up for the Canadian market. I let the dealer see my last was a US purchased vehicle. Once they saw that was for real, they caved as they knew what I knew, the border isn't that far away and RIV isn't that bad. They can sell well below invoice and still make money as they get quite the kickback from selling vehicles. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.