TriShield

GM posts $3.25 billion quarterly loss

Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:56pm EDT

DETROIT (Reuters) - General Motors Corp (GM.N: Quote, Profile, Research) on Wednesday posted better-than-expected results on strong overseas sales, despite a costly supplier strike, waning demand for its most profitable vehicles and charges related to struggling former subsidiaries.

GM, whose shares rose nearly 4 percent in pre-market trading, also took a $1.45-billion charge for its remaining investment in finance company GMAC and a $731-million charge for its exposure to the bankruptcy of auto parts supplier and former subsidiary Delphi Corp.

Weighed down by those charges, GM posted a net loss of $3.25 billion, or $5.74 per share, compared with a profit of $62 million, or 11 cents a share a year-earlier.

Revenue declined to $42.7 billion from $43.4 billion.

Excluding one-time items, GM reported a first-quarter loss of $350 million, or a 62 cents per share, a narrower loss than Wall Street had expected.

On average, analysts had expected GM to post a loss of $1.67 per share before items on revenue of $40.6 billion, according to Reuters Estimates.

GM Chief Financial Officer Ray Young said analysts may have underestimated the strength of GM's sales from emerging markets and the progress it made in cutting costs in North America.

"The headline numbers don't look that great, but when you actually peel back the numbers ... I feel the first quarter is very encouraging," Young told reporters.

Analysts had a mixed reaction to GM's results, including its negative cash flow of $3.8 billion in the quarter.

"Rationalizations abound, but we are left wondering: where is the bottom in North America?" Calyon Securities Mark Warnsman said in a note. "For a company in turnaround, cash flow is the ultimate test -- a test on which GM is failing to achieve a passing grade."

But JP Morgan analyst Himanshu Patel said the GM results were "not as bad as feared."

Some analysts noted that GM shares had been due for a bounce at the first sign of good news, due to a buildup in short positions during a 15 percent slide in the share price since the start of the year. Holders of short positions hope to buy back borrowed shares at a lower price, sometimes leading to a rebound in prices.

RECOVERY SEEN LESS 'ROBUST'

GM Chief Financial Officer Ray Young said GM was still forecasting a second-half recovery in U.S. auto sales but now believed the industry turnaround would be weaker than it had expected at the start of the year.

"We still believe there is going to be a second-half recovery, but probably not as robust as what we had thought at the beginning of the year," he said.

Lehman Brothers analyst Brian Johnson said he was encouraged by GM's "recognition" of a tougher sales climate in North America and its recent decision to cut planned truck production by 138,000 vehicles in 2008.

"These cuts will improve GM and hence industry capacity utilization, helping to improve pricing dynamics," he said.

GM earned $392 million before taxes and items on its auto operations with earnings from Europe, Latin America and Asia combining to outstrip a $611 million loss in North America.

In its home market, GM has been pressured by a two-month United Auto Workers strike against Detroit-based American Axle & Manufacturing Holdings Inc(AXL.N: Quote, Profile, Research), a major supplier to GM.

GM said the strike had cost 100,000 units of production and depressed first-quarter results by about $800 million.

The automaker has shut down or partly idled about 30 plants because of that strike, which has mainly affected production of slower-selling large SUVs and pickup trucks.

But the strike has also allowed GM to run down inventory sharply and to resist pressure from dealers to offer stepped-up sales incentives. GM's dealer stock hit a 25-year low for April at about 840,000 vehicles at month end.

"We're trying to manage our overall level of incentive activity, period," said GM President and Chief Operating Officer Fritz Henderson.

Henderson said GM had not anticipated the spike in oil prices to $120 per barrel or the resulting rapid defection by American consumers away from more expensive trucks.

"I think we missed that. I think a lot of people did and therefore the change in market mix has happened a lot faster than we thought," Henderson said.

GM has also struggled with the legacy of its troubled former subsidiaries: Delphi and GMAC.

GMAC posted a first-quarter loss of $589 million and warned that it might not be profitable again until 2009 because of falling home prices and tight credit markets.

GM wrote down the value of its investment in GMAC after concluding that the U.S. mortgage market was unlikely to recover in the near term. GM kept a 49-percent stake in GMAC after selling the rest to private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management LPCBS.UL in 2006.

GM's global vehicle sales fell nearly 1 percent to 2.25 million vehicles in the first quarter, falling far behind rival Toyota Motor Corp (7203.T: Quote, Profile, Research), which sold 2.41 million vehicles.

GM and Toyota had been roughly even in 2007 for the top spot among the world's automakers in sales volume.

(Reporting by Kevin Krolicki; Editing by Derek Caney)

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

Yet the stock price is up almost $2.50 a share right now, go figure.

TriShield

ON THE TABLE #443

April 30, 2008

GM. The car company that is well on its way to getting its product house in order and the one that's allegedly the best-positioned of all the domestic automakers to emerge from The Darkness, and the company that is thriving everywhere around the world except right here in its home country, hung a net loss of $3.25 billion on the board during the first quarter. Even though the majority of the loss was due to one-time charges relating to its share in the souring GMAC investment (just under $300 million), the American Axle strike ($800 million), and its ongoing problems with Delphi ($731 million), the results stink. Beyond the various charges, the company lost $42 million during the first quarter on total revenue of $42.7 billion. It did deliver a $1 billion dollar gain before taxes in operations around the world, but most disturbing is the fact that GM lost $812 million (before taxes) on revenue of $24.5 billion in its North American vehicle operations. GM can spin this all they want, but it's a heaping, steaming giant bowl of Not Good.

GM. Publisher's Note: This company continues to dance around the fact that its North American vehicle operations are simply out of touch with the reality of what's going on in this market. With too many models, too many divisions and too many dealers, GM will continue to lose money hand over fist in North America, and it's simply unacceptable at this point. Where is the leadership? Where is the vision? Where is the outrage? When is somebody down at the RenCen going to stand up and say "This ain't working!" What the hell is the so-called board of directors doing and why do they continue to rubber stamp what's going on in GM's North American operations, quarter after quarter after quarter? It's one thing to keep re-aligning GM's divisions here in an attempt to streamline the operating structure because that all sounds good on paper, but unless and until they start cutting divisions, cutting the model overlaps among the divisions and cutting their dealers dramatically, this company will continue to do ****-poorly in the U.S. market. GM resolutely believes that things are going to get better in North America, and that's fine, a little optimism never hurt anyone. But this is ridiculous. Nothing fundamentally has changed that will eventually improve this situation. And I mean n-o-t-h-i-n-g. Dealers are still clamoring for more products so that they can do what, sell against other GM divisions in their local markets? Frickin' brilliant. All the great products in the world aren't going to matter one bit if GM can't do what needs to be done in their home market. At this point what's going on in the North American market lands squarely in the lap of Rick Wagoner. Fix it, Rick, because this situation is getting flat-out embarrassing. If not, then a regime change will be in the offing long before you're ready to retire. - PMD

2000Hawk

iTrader: (5)

It is pretty bad when people don't support their country's automakers. And yeah in the past they didn't build such great cars, but hopefully now that GM is trying to right itself others can take notice of this as well.
-Joel

TriShield

General Motors Death Watch 175: Phone Calls From the Dead



By Robert Farago
April 30, 2008
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/

Dean Radin believes some people are psychic. No surprise there; investigating psychic phenomena is what Radin does for a living. And yet, when author Mary Roach asked the electrical engineer if there's a middle ground between believing that the dead contact the living through electromechanical devices and viewing the whole thing a hoax, Radin said "The middle ground between genuinely true and outright faking is unconscious delusion." Welcome to GM's world.

I have no doubt that GM CEO Rick Wagoner and his acolytes will face this quarter's $3.25b loss with equanimity. Why not? During the last four years, they've glibly provided every imaginable excuse for GM's inability to book a profit; from "restructuring" costs, to labor buyouts, to the housing crisis and gas prices and beyond. The "turnaround is on course" is burned into their collective unconscious. They murmur reassuring words– to themselves and the outside world– and get back to the business of losing money.

In reality, there was a time when GM had the financial clout to make a $3.25b quarterly loss look like a right cross to a WWE wrestler's chin. But whether or not Wagoner et al admit it, the automaker's $23.9b supply of cash, marketable securities and other available funds– and that's worldwide folks, not North America– simply isn't enough to see the automaker through the current crisis, or the crisis to come.

The key point: GM needs to be analyzed for its cash flow, not earnings. This quarter, GM’s direct operating cash flow was negative $3.9b including special items. Total cash flow after non-operating items: negative $3.4b. Speaking to financial analysts, COO Fritz Henderson' tried to compare GM's current cash levels vs. last year's first financial quarter. But that’s irrelevant. All that matters is cash generated vs. cash spent over the last three months. And that’s decidedly negative.

In fact, GM was only saved from a total C11 meltdown in recent years by asset sales (well north of $10b, maybe as much as $20b). There's no escaping it: GM's business is going up in flames. You can feel the burn at the sharp end.

Henderson said GM NA's dealer inventory in April is around 840k units, the lowest level since 1983. But Fritz also said dealer stocks of full-size pickup trucks– GM's former cash cow– are still "higher than we'd like." Uh, GM has stopped making pickups (thanks to a strike by American Axle workers). And Toyota is about to pile discounts of the hood of its superabundance of Tundras. And Ford is about to launch the new F-150.

But it ain't just lost pickup profits plaguing GM. SUV sales have also cratered. In March, GM's truck and SUV sales (combined) dropped 22 percent. Worse still: falling SUV/pickup residuals trap existing GM owners in their current rigs. They can't be turned into repeat buyers to soak-up truck production– should it ever restart in any meaningful fashion.

Meanwhile, GM has no credible small cars to take up the slack. In a market where B-Class cars are flying off the lot, GM's products come complete with rebates. The automaker has no known programs to develop profitable vehicles in this segment except the Volt– which is (sticking with reality) a non-starter. For traditional domestic car buyers, a resurgent Ford looks set to steal whatever's left of GM's lunch.

In the financial realm, there's blood all over the carpet. Thanks to bad loans, bad management and a bad economy, GM's former financial powerhouse– car and mortgage lender GMAC– is heading for disaster. In terms of that beleaguered cash pile, GM has announced that it will advance up to $650m to its bankrupt former division Delphi in 2008. At the same time, GM's credit ratings are falling. Will the company lose access to its existing credit facilities?

As always, Wagoner and GM's camp followers cling to whatever good news they can pull from the wreckage. Today's Bloomberg headline on GM's Q1 loss sets the standard for self-denial: "GM Has Smaller Loss Than Estimated on Overseas Sales." In other words, overseas markets will keep GM afloat. Only, as discussed here many times and explained above, it won't. As TTAC commentator lprocter1982 points out, "GM's international profits, combined, don't equal even a third of their total loss."

To use the vernacular, stick a fork in GM. It's done. It's all over bar the lawsuits, recriminations, government bail-outs and unfurled golden parachutes. In fact, if GM's management accepted the full reality of the company's situation, they'd file for Chapter 11 now, while the automaker still has enough cash to reinvent itself, before Chapter 7 dissolution.

Of course, that would mean the end of Rick Wagoner's administration, his $14.4m annual compensation package and the sharp exit of his fantastically well-paid people (e.g. Car Czar Bob Lutz). Could the GM Empire finally be destroyed by unbridled personal greed? In truth, it's a done deal.

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

to that.

Of course the general population DOES support their own in Japan (and Germany, and Italy, and Sweden etc.) but when an honest/loyal American tries it they get called a racist.

1fastz

iTrader: (16)

Im no business expert, but if a company loses money of this magnitude at a constant rate, I dont think it can stay in business for much longer. People need to start supporting our American companies.

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

[sarcasm]Nah, no need to support it at all. If GM (or Ford) goes under it won't affect anyone who isn't directly employed by them, right?
And those that ARE employed by GM can just go work for Toyota or Honda instead after they close their doors correct?[/sarcasm]

Oh wait, those company's are the epitome of production efficiency and robotic technology so sorry GM/Ford employees, looks like Japan MAY NOT be putting food on your tables (as so many of the Economics Professors on this board claim will happen) afterall.

If GM goes under, EVERYONE pays.

DrkPhynx

Exactly.

But some people, including those here, seem to LOVE this sort of bad news and seek it out as much as possible to plaster it here in our faces.

PewterScreaminMach

iTrader: (7)

I'll start supporting GM by buying one of their new cars when they start building cars that will last and perform fuel-efficiency-wise like the Hondas and other makes out there. Until they do, I just can't afford the maintenance and fuel costs.

It's not a matter of me saying, "Oh hey, maybe I'll buy a Honda today because screw these American companies", it's me saying, "Why the hell am I going to make the second biggest purchase of my life based strictly on where the item was built even though I can get a better value, quality, and performance by buying a different option?"

Sorry, but I don't have the $20,000-30,000 just sitting around to make stupid decisions like that which will screw me 100,000 miles down the road instead of 250,000. This isn't a $20 purchase we're talking about here.

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

Not only that, they almost seem to gloat about it.
Almost makes ya wonder how these same people feel about losses/defeats in battle/war among our fine military.
"Totally separate issues" they might say? Maybe.
But if one is cheering the demise of the legendary, historical American icon that is General Motors then who's to say they're not also gloating, applauding the same among our servicemen as well. That's bordering on what is known as treason by the way.
I love ALL that is American, I don't pick and choose.

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

They do.
And have been for quite a few years now.
Malibu, Cobalt, G6, Solstice/Sky, Corvette, CTS, Silverado/Sierra, entire Saturn line, Tahoe/Yukon/Suburban/Escalade, STS, Park Avenue etc. etc.

Problem is, people are SO QUICK to remember and recall GM's (or Ford's, or Chrysler's) dark times but they so conveniently forget and dismiss that period when Japan (Toyota (remember the Toyopet? ), Datsun, all of them) was building those rusting, oil burning, pieces of crap back in the day.
Why is that?

PewterScreaminMach

iTrader: (7)

Half of those cars you mention haven't been around long enough to tell whether or not they will hold up to the same kind of mileage with the same maintenance as the Civics and Camrys, etc.

How many Cobalt or Malibu or Solstice or STS or Corvette owners do you know that have 250,000 miles on the car and haven't replaced the engine? Or even have that kind of mileage WITH an engine swap for that matter?.

And SUVs don't really count since my argument was good gas mileage (and with gas prices how they are, you're out of your friggin mind if you think I would even consider buying an SUV or truck, nevermind the fact that I never would have in the first place because of the horrible gas mileage).

If you have to buy an SUV or truck, an American vehicle may or may not be the best way to go, but for a normal sized car as a daily driver, the "turnaround" that everyone talks about with these newer American cars hasn't been going on long enough to tell if they will actually hold up like the competition.

Hopefully five years down the road I'll be able to change my mind on the subject as I would LOVE it if GM and Ford could put the imports to shame in the daily driver category. I am VERY optimistic about the Ford Fusion, for one (purchased and driven a few for my company from the first year through the current and no recalls, no issues, and an all around great car from what I've seen and experienced so far).

DrkPhynx

I had 184,000 miles on my 1984 Trans Am. Total amount of work, outside of normal maintenance was a $15 control module that died. It got wrecked and I had to get rid of it.

I rolled over 100,000 miles in my 1971 Olds 98 Royale Convertible. (and I even ran it dry of oil once and never harmed it in any way that I could tell) I sold it to move on to other cars and regret it to this day.

I had 90,000 on my 1988 GTA before I wrecked it and got rid of it - never had ANY problems with it.

148,000 miles on my 1990 Grand Prix SE. Tires, brake caliper, 1 axle-shaft, anda battery. Was totaled when a Ford Explorer rear-ended me.

156,000 miles on my 1991 Grand Prix SE. Battery, Alternator, Belt, and tires. Sold it to buy a 2003 Dodge Dakota R/T.

R/T has 36,000+ miles on it, zero trouble.

My '02 WS6 has 11,020 miles on it. Obviously no problems at all.

Other than the R/T and WS6, every car I bought was USED, with all the potential problems that entails, and yet, I never seemed to go wrong, or have expensive CRCs, and all of them were medium to high mileage, and note that 2 of them were from the "worst" perior (the 80s), and 2 were from the tail end of that period ('90 and '91).

You drank the Kool Aid and beleive the hype.

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

My experiences with the 14 or so new and used domestic nameplate vehicles (mostly GM and Ford but even one Plymouth) that I've owned over the years echo yours almost exactly, dead on reliable.

TT632

iTrader: (3)

[QUOTE=TriShield;9274785]General Motors Death Watch 175: Phone Calls From the Dead



By Robert Farago
April 30, 2008
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/
QUOTE]

Don't believe it. When I was at GM, it was much more grim then now. The products were less exciting and the trucks were the only thing that sparked any interest. Now there are cars that I would consider buying new. GMs full size trucks have best in class gas mileage and have more power then ever. If you want to make one fast, throw in a LS7 or slap on a turbo and buy HP tuner. The LSx motors have been more successful than anyone would have thought. Ford blew it when they went with their mod motor when they could have improved the 5.0 and 351, and the Import people don't have a clue saying that push rod motors are dinosaurs even though the OHC motors were invented at approximately the same time! All of this talk about foreign companies supplying us with more jobs than any of the big three is spin. The Foreign automakers will never employ us in great #s because their loyalty is with their people, not us.

There are some people that post on here that seem to thrive on knocking GM and it's demise in spite of GM providing more jobs to Americans then all of the import OEMs combined. My hats off to GM Powertrain and the designers that continue to bust their buts on future products. GM is a top heavy company and could use some trimming for sure, but they have the Engineering capability that is deeper than most of you know.
In the end I will continue to support the companies that provide us with our jobs and more specifically support GM on their products that have good reviews (And GM does have their fair share of products that have good reviews).

TriShield

You hit the nail on the head.

It's not that people aren't supporting American companies, it's that companies like GM have been building a gigantic amount of complete crap that has alienated people from all of their brands and they will never go back.

The problem isn't consumers. It's General Motors, and the General's current leadership is completely running the company into the ground just like the Daimler-Benz did to Chrysler.

TriShield

Guys, you don't need a better example of how badly run GM is than the F-bodies. The Camaro and Firebird both defined their brands and were legendary and unique cars only GM could deliver and what did they do? They let them whither without updates and canned them in order to devote resources to trucks and SUVs.

Years later Wagoner, Lutz, et all "canned" Zeta and making distinct RWD American cars for trucks once again. They devoted resources to accelerating the release of the GMT900 trucks and SUVs, products that are not selling at all.

GM abandoned all of you, abandoned making fullsize American cars (They ceded this market to Ford and later Chrysler picked up the slack with completely new and hot offerings) and didn't devote the same type of resources they did in cars like the new CTS to a compact and subcompact car which people are flocking to in droves.

To add insult to injury they gave Ford the entire muscle car market and the Mustang has flourished. GM's mishandling of it's own cars and putting gas-guzzling, terribly performing, woefully out of touch trucks first has now resulted in them playing catch-up to the Mustang and the Japanese. On both counts GM is going to be way too late to both parties.

The Camaro is taking forever to make and by the time it gets here fuel will be $4+ per gallon. Meanwhile Ford and Chrysler have the muscle and fullsize RWD American car market to themselves and the Japanese sell thousands of compact and subcompact cars to a public that wants them.

GM is going to be toast at this rate.

Whisper

iTrader: (12)

Agreed.

COD02SS

The day of the GAS GUZZLER is OVER