Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GM loses $9 billion in 2005

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • GM loses $9 billion in 2005

    That's $9 billion with a "b," boys. $15.13 a share loss in a single year, when the share price is only $22.

    The carcasses are stinking up the place...

    Yesterday, Bush hinted that a federal bailout would not be forthcoming and that GM and Ford would have to fix themselves. (You probably already well know my position on this.)

    GM Posts Massive Loss for Year
    Amid North America Struggles
    Shares Slide After Rallying Earlier in Week
    By LEE HAWKINS JR.
    Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
    January 26, 2006 2:46 p.m.

    DETROIT -- Calling 2005 "one of the most difficult years" in its history, General Motors Corp. reported a fourth-quarter loss of $4.78 billion, or $8.45 a share, saying the results are preliminary, pending the outcome of a previously disclosed internal accounting review of how it booked supplier credits in the past.

    The massive losses were led by a poor performance in GM's flagship North American automotive operations and restructuring charges related to restructuring and other charges.

    The past year was "was a year in which two significant fundamental weaknesses in our North American operations were fully exposed – our huge legacy cost burden and our inability to adjust structural costs in line with falling revenue," said Rick Wagoner, GM's chairman and CEO.

    The company's $4.8 billion loss in the fourth quarter compared with a loss of $99 million, or 18 cents a share, in 2004's final quarter. Excluding "special" items related to plant closings and a $2.3 billion guarantee to United Auto Worker members employed by Delphi Corp., GM said its quarterly losses were $1.2 billion, or $2.09 a share in the fourth quarter, which it compared with adjusted earnings of $726 million, or $1.28 a share, a year earlier.

    GM said it could revise the earnings report sometime prior to its filing of its annual 10-K form with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In that filing, GM is expected to report the results of the Delphi-related internal accounting review, which could have an impact on GM's previously reported numbers. GM's review is probing the booking and timing of supplier credits, and the company has said it will adjust its numbers in the coming weeks if necessary.

    All told, GM's fourth-quarter special items totaled $3.6 billion after-tax, or $6.36 a diluted share, including an after-tax restructuring charge of $1.3 billion in North America and the preliminary after-tax Delphi-UAW guarantees.

    General Motors Vice Chairman & CFO Frederick Henderson2 discusses earnings results, saying there's "not much to be pleased about in our numbers." And WSJ's Gerald Seib discusses3 what the loss means for GM and whether a government bailout is in sight.

    Delphi, which is under bankruptcy-court protection, was a GM subsidiary before the car maker sold it in a public offering. As part of the sale, GM made certain pension and health-care guarantees to thousands of unionized workers who transferred to the Delphi payroll.

    GM's fourth-quarter losses brought its total 2005 loss to $8.6 billion, or $15.13 a share, compared with net income of $2.8 billion, or $4.92 a share, for 2004.

    Auto-Making Losses

    GM's losses continued to be driven by weakness in its automotive business, mainly in North America, which recorded an adjusted loss of $1.5 billion in the quarter, compared with $268 million a year earlier. Globally, GM's automotive operations reported an adjusted loss of $1.5 billion during the quarter, compared with adjusted earnings of $268 million a year ago.

    Overall, GM's automotive operations posted adjusted losses of $5.3 billion in 2005; they had adjusted earnings of $1.2 billion in 2004. The losses were partially offset by improvements in GM's results in Europe and Latin America.

    GM said its quarterly losses in North America were driven by lower production of full-sized sport utility vehicles, increased health care costs, and higher marketing and advertising spending. "GM's top priority is to restore our North American operations to profitability and positive cash flow as quickly as possible," Mr. Wagoner said in a prepared statement. GM said its global capital spending was about $1 billion in 2005, which included investment in its new line of SUVs and trucks and crossover vehicles.

    By contrast, General Motors Acceptance Corp., GM's most profitable subsidiary, which sells mortgages and insurance, boosted GM's results with fourth-quarter gains of $614 million, compared to $683 million a year earlier. The quarterly boost brought GMAC's 2005 contribution to $2.8 billion, down from $2.9 billion a year ago. GMAC's strong performance came despite the strong headwinds posed to by GM's junk credit ratings.

    GM also cut its long-running losses in Europe nearly in half in 2005 and reported an adjusted fourth quarter loss of $159 million, an improvement from a loss of $345 million a year ago.

    In its Asia-Pacific region, GM reported adjusted earnings of $112 million, down from $117 million a year ago, while in Latin America, GM reported quarterly adjusted earnings of $20 million, compared to $47 million a year ago.

    Shares of GM slid in early morning trading Thursday, dropping 5.4% to $22.56 on the New York Stock Exchange. The stock had rallied earlier in the week in the wake of Ford Motor Co.'s better-than-expected earnings report.

    Problems at GM, Ford

    The world's largest auto maker, along with No. 2 U.S. car maker Ford, has been struggling with declining U.S. sales and rising health-care and materials costs.

    Mr. Wagoner said earlier this month that GM aims to reduce costs by about $11 billion by the end of 2010 in a sweeping plan that inevitably will lead to more job cuts beyond the 30,000 GM has promised by 2008. Thursday, GM also reiterated that it continues "to explore the possible sale of a controlling interest" in GMAC.

    President Bush, in an interview Wednesday, said GM and Ford should develop "a product that's relevant" rather than look to Washington for help with their heavy pension obligations, and hinted he would take a dim view of a government bailout of the struggling auto makers. Asked if he had spoken to GM's Mr. Wagoner or Ford Chairman and CEO William Clay Ford Jr., Mr. Bush replied: "Not about their balance sheets." He added: "And I haven't been asked by any automobile manufacturer about a bailout." (See related article4 and Bush transcript5.)

    In trying to get out of its rut, GM also is cutting sticker prices for many of its models, as it tries to wean customers off of a steady diet of incentives. Last summer, amid slow sales and heavy inventories on many models, GM launched a clearance sale, offering vehicles at employee-discount pricing. Although the deal came with slimmer margins, it boosted sales significantly. But GM's sales were sluggish for several months after the promotion, even as Japanese rivals made steady inroads.

    In recent months, GM's stock price slumped as investors grew alarmed at the company's inability to turn a profit on auto making. In December, Standard & Poor's downgraded GM's corporate credit rating two notches to a B, with a negative outlook, from a previous rating of double-B-minus, saying GM's prospects for a bankruptcy filing had increased.

    The Detroit-based company, however, recently received an endorsement of sorts. Investor Kirk Kerkorian boosted his stake in GM back to 9.9%, paying about $263 million for 12 million shares of the auto maker -- essentially reversing a December sale that had lowered his stake to 7.8%.
    Last edited by DanS; March 31, 2006, 13:26.
    I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

  • #2
    That's what happens when you make ****ty cars. Their personel costs, I'm sure, are the other major factor. But I love it when the CEO or whoever blames it all on having to pay their workforce. The cars are crap.

    -Arrian
    grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

    The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

    Comment


    • #3
      Bush (in this case)

      Comment


      • #4
        Keep in mind this is including GMAC making a profit of $2.8 billion.
        "The French caused the war [Persian Gulf war, 1991]" - Ned
        "you people who bash Bush have no appreciation for one of the great presidents in our history." - Ned
        "I wish I had gay sex in the boy scouts" - Dissident

        Comment


        • #5
          Good point.
          I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Arrian
            That's what happens when you make ****ty cars. Their personel costs, I'm sure, are the other major factor. But I love it when the CEO or whoever blames it all on having to pay their workforce. The cars are crap.

            -Arrian
            Agree 100%.
            "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
            Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

            Comment


            • #7
              Oh, and yeah - to Bush on this (if he really is serious about not bailing them out). That'll be my first to Bush since... um... late 2001.

              -Arrian
              grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

              The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

              Comment


              • #8
                The GM engineers are obviously crap because they had to take too many liberal arts classes in college and couldn't spend enough time actually studying engineering.
                "Yay Apoc!!!!!!!" - bipolarbear
                "At least there were some thoughts went into Apocalypse." - Urban Ranger
                "Apocalype was a great game." - DrSpike
                "In Apoc, I had one soldier who lasted through the entire game... was pretty cool. I like apoc for that reason, the soldiers are a bit more 'personal'." - General Ludd

                Comment


                • #9
                  American manufacturers' cars are crap. And it's not the simple workers fault. After all, there are auto plants by other manufacturers. And those aren't crap. It's the fault of the people who design the cars. They have crap design departments. Ford will do ok, if they just let the people from Mazda take care of all that complicated stuff like "building a reliable car", etc.
                  urgh.NSFW

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Designing and Engineering, plus (IIUC) old, inefficient facilities.

                    Ford will do ok, if they just let the people from Mazda take care of all that complicated stuff like "building a reliable car", etc.


                    Pretty much.

                    -Arrian
                    grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

                    The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      they own Saturn don't they? Isn't Saturn still making a profit?

                      Not that saturns are all that great, but women like them. It's their only halfway decent car. All their other cars suck. They just need to discontinue these crappy brands. And yes that will mean laying off 75% to 90% of their workforce. But if people aren't buying, why are they still making?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Saturn started off ok, but then GM reeled it back in and, IIUC, basically killed it (it was making them look bad). edit: the original idea was for Saturn to operate more-or-less independently and model itself like the more successful Japanese car makers. Plus the whole "no haggling" sales approach. This was working. Then GM re-absorbed them. Dunno if Saturns are selling well now.

                        My mom has a '93 Saturn. It's ok. It's like an 80's Japanese car.

                        -Arrian
                        grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

                        The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Az
                          American manufacturers' cars are crap. And it's not the simple workers fault. After all, there are auto plants by other manufacturers. And those aren't crap. It's the fault of the people who design the cars. They have crap design departments. Ford will do ok, if they just let the people from Mazda take care of all that complicated stuff like "building a reliable car", etc.
                          The workers have been getting blamed probably since the eighties. The problem is obviously management. After all, Mazda's are mostly built by America workers these days.
                          I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
                          - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Article on Saturn (Forbes, from 2004):



                            The key bit:

                            The problems go back to Saturn's creation in the 1980s by Roger Smith, who was GM's chief executive at the time. His plan was to build a car that was fully competitive against small Japanese automobiles. So GM spent billions creating a unique vehicle and building a new factory in Tennessee.

                            Saturn was special in other ways. All its cars had plastic bodies, which wouldn't rust or dent. And the original union contract for Saturn was more of a cooperative venture between workers and management than the usual confrontational approach. The idea was to make Saturn as much of a separate company as possible, to build cars and relationships that GM seemed unable to do with its existing divisions and infrastructure.

                            The other GM divisions didn't appreciate the Saturn message--that the old ways were wrong and they couldn't compete against foreigners--nor were they happy when GM diverted precious resources to Saturn instead of using them for Chevrolet or Oldsmobile. Saturn was Roger Smith's baby and he was generally disliked by the men who succeeded him at GM.

                            Let me put it this way: GM insiders all hated Saturn.

                            Saturn had excellent managers and was successful in winning hearts and minds of new customers. The dealers, few and far enough apart so they weren't competing with each other, won a reputation for treating people squarely. The one-price-for-all strategy seemed extra-honest, too. But it's really hard to prosper selling one old model for a whole decade.

                            A few years ago GM began dismantling Saturn, taking away its ability to design, engineer and build its own cars. Today Saturn is a separate company in name only. I would predict that the plastic bodies that symbolize the Saturn difference will be going soon, too. That "pull together" contract (teamwork, no time clocks, no layoffs, etc.), is also on its way out, in favor of a standard union agreement.

                            Even the goal of showing that Americans could beat the Japanese in building small cars has disappeared. GM is now putting Honda engines in some Saturns.

                            The results of all this mismanagement: Through July of this year the division sold a total of only 173,421 vehicles, a 23% decrease. That's before the news broke on the Vue's suspension problem.

                            Saturn has never moved past the 300,000 mark in annual sales. Its best year was a decade ago.

                            Year Unit Sales
                            1990 1,881*
                            1991 74,493
                            1992 196,126
                            1993 229,356
                            1994 286,003
                            1995 285,674
                            1996 278,535
                            1997 250,835
                            1998 231,522
                            1999 232,433
                            2000 271,780
                            2001 260,730
                            2002 280,248
                            2003 271,157
                            2004 220,000**

                            *November and December only. **Estimated

                            Today GM is trying rebuild Saturn, but in a fairly conventional way. This fall it will get a version of the new GM minivan that will also be sold by Chevrolet, Pontiac and Buick. The minivan will be Saturn's first vehicle with a metal body, but it won't be the last. A metal-bodied sports car is on tap for early 2006. A future replacement for the larger L sedan and an upcoming, larger SUV may also have metal bodies.

                            Remember that first Saturn Motto?

                            "A different kind of car.
                            A different kind of company."

                            Today Saturn is just another GM division. For Saturn to be a success it needs a new mission statement similar to its original plan.
                            grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

                            The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Oooh, I also forgot this: IIRC, GM owns like a dozen different brands, and manufactures loads of different models, without the volumes of sales to match it. Which means higher costs. I don't say kill the brands, but they should maybe manufacture only one model per brand or something.


                              EDIT: an x-post that works
                              urgh.NSFW

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X