General Motors Posts Massive $3.3. BILLION Loss

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

DEE-ANN DURBIN | April 30, 2008 05:12 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »

Show your support.
Buzz this article up.
A group of GMC Yukons sit on a lot at the Ray Laethem GMC Trucks dealership in Detroit, Mich., Tuesday, April 29, 2008. General Motors Corp. struggled to a $3.3 billion first-quarter loss, due in part to a weak U.S. market, a strike at a major parts supplier and plummeting sales of sport utility vehicles and pickups. (AP Photo/Gary Malerba)

DETROIT — Bowing to grim reality, General Motors Corp. followed Ford's lead and cut its U.S. sales forecast Wednesday after a tough first quarter that saw a $3.3 billion loss.

But unlike Ford, GM faces more unknowns that could complicate its North American turnaround and drag down strong results overseas, including a strike at supplier American Axle, the protracted bankruptcy case of its former parts division, Delphi Corp., and unresolved labor talks in Canada.

GM's loss for the January-March period amounted to $5.74 per share, reflecting $2.9 billion in one-time charges. That compares with a profit of $62 million, or 11 cents per share, in the first quarter of 2007.

Without the one-time charges, GM lost $350 million, or 62 cents per share, handily beating Wall Street's expectations. On that news, investors sent GM's shares up 9.4 percent, or $2, to close at $23.20. Analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial had expected a loss of $1.60 per share.

Ray Young, GM's chief financial officer, said analysts may be underestimating the company's overseas growth. GM said revenues rose 20 percent outside North America thanks to strong expansion in China, Russia, Brazil and India. A record 64 percent of sales came from outside the U.S. in the quarter.

But problems persist in GM's home market. The Detroit-based automaker cut its industrywide U.S. sales outlook for 2008 to between 15.3 million and 15.5 million light vehicles from 16 million at the beginning of the year, largely due to plummeting sales of trucks and sport utility vehicles. That's still higher than Ford Motor Co., which is forecasting 15 million sales. Young said GM believes the second quarter will be weak but that things will improve later in the year as lower interest rates and federal stimulus measures kick in.

"We want to run our business conservatively. We want to be realistic," Young said.

Some analysts say GM's biggest problem has been its failure to plan for the weak U.S. market, where 2008 sales are expected to drop to a 14-year low.

"In our view, GM entered this year too optimistically, thus failing to manage its production and inventory appropriately," Calyon Securities analyst Mark Warnsman said in a note to investors.

But Lehman Brothers analyst Brian Johnson said he was encouraged by the company's decision to lower its forecast as well as its announcement this week that it will cut production at four U.S. truck and SUV plants, affecting 3,500 jobs. Johnson said those moves show GM's management recognizes how tough the U.S. sales environment has gotten.

The one-time items included a $1.45 billion charge to reflect a change in the value of GM's 49 percent share in GMAC Financial Services. Young said the company revalued its stake because of losses in GMAC's residential mortgage division.

GM also took a $731 million charge to reflect liabilities at Delphi. GM said it has taken $8.3 billion in Delphi-related charges to date as the supplier struggles to emerge from bankruptcy protection after two and a half years.

Ford, which reported a surprise $100 million first-quarter profit last week, helped its former parts division Visteon Corp. avoid bankruptcy with a 2005 bailout. It also hasn't been affected by the two-month strike at Detroit-based American Axle and Manufacturing Holdings Inc., which is in the midst of contentious labor negotiations with the United Auto Workers. American Axle spokeswoman Renee Rogers said talks were continuing Wednesday.

GM said the strike, which has affected 30 plants, cost it $800 million and 100,000 vehicles in the first quarter _ although several analysts said GM would have had to cut that production anyway. GM President and Chief Operating Officer Fritz Henderson said despite the losses, GM doesn't want to intervene.

"What we've tried to do is be helpful where we could be with the UAW and American Axle, but we really do not want to be involved," he said in a conference call.

Ford has another advantage: It already has agreed to a preliminary labor agreement with the Canadian Auto Workers. GM and Chrysler LLC have yet to reach theirs, but will now be pressured by the union to accept Ford's terms.

Henderson said he doesn't measure GM's progress against other automakers.

"I'm not going to get into the business of trying to compare us with Ford or us with anybody else. We've got to get the business turned around," he said. He added that all U.S. automakers will struggle this year with high gas prices and consumers' rapid switch to smaller, less profitable vehicles.

GM's revenue for the quarter totaled $42.7 billion, down from $43.4 billion a year ago.

The company lost $812 million in North America, compared with a loss of $208 million in the year-ago quarter. Its North American market share dropped from 22.5 percent to 21.7 percent.

Jonathan Steinmetz, an analyst with Morgan Stanley, expressed concern about GM's $3.4 billion cash burn for the quarter, and said the company should consider cutting its dividend and raising more capital. GM ended the quarter with $23.9 billion in cash and $7 billion in credit facilities. By comparison, Ford ended the quarter with total liquidity of $40.6 billion.

GM sold 2.25 million vehicles worldwide in the first quarter, down less than 1 percent from a year ago.

___

On the Net:

General Motors Corp.: http://www.gm.com

 
 

Comments
64
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)

This was bound to happen. Oil was bound to get much more expensive and yet they kept making gas guzzlers and didn't invest in alternative energy.
Reliability of American cars has been terrible for decades.
What were they thinking?
This is another indicator that the profit driven and corporate controlled market is not a free market and doesn't work in the interests of the USA.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:33 AM on 05/01/2008

Newsflash: GM is in the heathcare business... plus the UAW dose not understand the United States will not turn to full blown socialism oh and it dose not help when California Seniors press on bills that ruin anything the GM dose to sale cars.

Americans dont want shoeboxes

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:15 AM on 05/01/2008

Americans don't want $4/gallon gasoline either but that's the reality we're dealing with. I'd rather drive a "shoebox" than send half my paycheck to Exxon-Mobil every month.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:44 AM on 05/01/2008

Thanks again UAW!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:44 PM on 04/30/2008

Thanks UAW? Send me your address and my UAW pals and I will come over for some ... coffee. We'll chat. C'mon.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:57 AM on 05/01/2008

Yeah, it was the UAW that made one idiotic choice after another about what models should be built and where. And I'm almost certain it was the UAW that decided to forget about innovation and research because when you have so many Congressmen and Senators in your pocket, why bother?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:02 AM on 05/01/2008

The UAW has killed the Goose that laid the golden egg.

Don't take my word for it :

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/03/big-three-big-losses-declining-market.html

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:35 AM on 05/01/2008

Nice try. I'm wondering why I don't see any pretty little graphs comparing US and European labour costs. Hmmm. Darn those Europeans anyway. They pay their workers more and still manage to sell cars all over the world.

American manufacturers don't build cars anybody else in the world wants, which restricts their market and makes them prey to any random factor which destroys the hothouse environment that they sell in. The success of SUV's, for example is predicated on a loophole in US law that exempts them from mileage standards. The legislators of many other countries aren't so open to "persuasion". US manufacturers hardly have any right-hand drive models, either, so kiss the Japanese and English markets goodbye. I could go on, but if you do a little research you'll find out for yourself pretty quickly.

Here's something else to chew on: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/06/us_car_manufact.php

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:34 AM on 05/04/2008

GM had 20+ years to develop a high-milage (50+)
turbodiesel, and they didn't do squat. They built
Escalades and Yukons instead.

Out of the way, losers.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:20 PM on 04/30/2008

Is there anyone dumber than a GM shareholder? Why not some Enron stocks or some stocks in white star ship builders?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:47 PM on 04/30/2008

GM stock jumped $3.00 on the news they lost $3 Billion. If they they had lost $6 Billion would the stock have jumped $6.00?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:53 PM on 04/30/2008

Intersting thought - I believe White Star (as in RMS Titanic) became part of Cunard (Queen Mary 2)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:00 PM on 04/30/2008

Make a car we would like to drive and your profits will return. I suggest you study the way they do it in Japan. They are the leaders in this sort of thing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:35 PM on 04/30/2008

I second that motion. I used to have a GMC Yukon XL several years back (13 mpg). I got rid of it in 2005, at the beginning of the steep rise in gas prices. I then went out and bought a 2006 Scion XB, which gets 35 mpg. For $14,500, it was one of the best bargains in automobiles (and still is).

I loved the car so much I traded up for the latest 2008 model. While I lost about 8% in mileage, I gained it in safety and comfort. It is truly one of the best engineered cars given the low price. The Japanese are years ahead of the U.S. in terms of innovation and value.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:11 PM on 04/30/2008

Karma.

GM made a huge contribution to the destruction of Los Angeles' fine streetcar/rail system, with the result that Lost Angelenos, by and large, cannot simply countenance using mass transit on a large scale (that and the fact that the Lost Angeles Metropolitan Area, unlike that of Nueva York, is diffuse and not amenable to the sort of mass transit one finds in the Northeast Corridor)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:33 PM on 04/30/2008

GM was not soley responsible for the destruction of the rail system in Los Angeles. It was a combination of factors, most notably that rail owners were losing money. The jitney, the automobile, poor urban planning by city officials, and unreasonable caps on fares by city regulatory agencies were all contributing factors. I know this because I studied this subject intensely.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:18 PM on 04/30/2008

Seems to me they should have invested in the oil business!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:26 PM on 04/30/2008

The main problem GM is facing is that by the time they will have finished turning, the market will have made yet another gyration and true 60+mpg cars will be the hot sellers. And by the time they get there, 100+mpg plug in hybrids will dominate the market. If they ever get there, that is.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:08 PM on 04/30/2008

Last weekend we stopped in a service area and one those electric coups Honda marketed several years ago was sitting in a parking space across from me with the headlights on and dimming out. The owner a woman, had fallen a sleep, and left the lights on, woops. I woke her up, but it was to late. I think these Hondas needed at least 3 hours to charge using a standard 120 outlet. Non-hybrid electrics are short-range urban commuter cars only, not useful for long trips. I don"t buy the GM killed the electric car nonsense, the reason auto makers want experimental fleets back after public testing, even if the owners want to buy them is because if the vehicle is not slated for full production, it"s not cost effective to stock spare parts for such a small fleet of vehicles not to mention the cost of full DOT certification.

If you don"t believe me, when Ford bought Land Rover from BMW, the Range Rover, which utilized a BMW V8, had just been redesigned and had been though DOT crash testing etc. Even though Ford builds a fine 32 valve double overhead cam V8, which would have fit right in, they ended up buying V8s from BMW, simply because of the cost of certifying a low volume luxury SUV for a new motor was simply prohibitive. Not a smart move on Ford"s part.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:58 PM on 04/30/2008

I guess we're starting to see the change the dems were talking about where they took back congress

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:47 PM on 04/30/2008

Yea its the dems fault that gas is shooting thru the roof and GM can't make a better car.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:54 PM on 04/30/2008

that's true, since the dems took over gas as increased by a dollar fifty per gallon...good point...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:33 PM on 04/30/2008

The Dems couldn't stop the accelerated pace Bush set for the run-up of gas.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:39 PM on 04/30/2008

I have a GM Venture van and its my last ever ...BiG 3 car/van I'm ever going to buy.

Pile of crap thats for ever taking cash to maintain.

My next car will come from Honda or Toyota.

As for the plight of the Big 3 losing money....consider how much the guy with a family
is getting paid to put on your 5 wheel nuts of your new car on the production line...per hour?

Yep....at least $25 per hour....no wonder the work is going to China.

And if your a GM design engineer...do your country a favour and take a trip
to europe and see how real cars should look. The US made car looks
like its been pumped up with air to make it look tough like a jock.

I laugh when I see all these Ford ads showing you the F150 and telling you it can
haul more than the Chev,,,hahaha....America...wake up...its the conservative
taste in cars that will save you..not the small penis jock machines.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:05 PM on 04/30/2008

Wow! $25 an hour! They might actually be able to buy a house and maybe even support a family on that kind of money. I guess we can't have that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:14 PM on 04/30/2008

That $25/hour does NOT include the full medical benefits, the pension, the numerous weeks of vacation, the paid holidays and so forth. If you don't have a college education that is great pay. If you can't live on that in the midwest then you have spending problems.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:16 AM on 05/01/2008

And yet they always seem to find the money to pay for those huge executive bonus packages.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:46 AM on 05/01/2008

The whole being able to haul bullshit is such a stupid advertising gimick. No realistic person would ever look at a Ford and wonder what they can haul with it. If you are an average American who is not working at a job that requires you to haul around your tools then consider what you will be hauling. Those ad's they show of a truck pulling a train or pulling a Semi - honestly, when was the last time you saw a truck haul a train or a yatch? Your average joe is going to be hauling a few pieces of furniture and groceries nothing more.

I've also noticed the whole push to sell more boats to people. Do people have any idea what it costs to own a boat? I'm not talking about a sail boat but one of those mini yatchs that people haul around. The amount of gas those things drink coupled with maintanence and repair is obscene.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:36 PM on 04/30/2008

If you are looking at larger Vans or SUV's look at a Volvo or a Toyota 4 Runner.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:30 PM on 04/30/2008

I have a 4Runner V8 Sport, which I tow 5,200 pounds with and it will get 22 to 24 miles to the gallon on a trip. I have never had a problem with it except for a faulty tire pressure sensor. If I did not need the towing capacity, I would own the new Jetta station wagon. My Jetta sedan will haul as much stuff with seats folded as the Toyota, except you need to be careful about weight. My GMC Envoy had a great in-line six, but had to be towed on 3 separated occasions, the problems, finally got ironed out, but the ergonomics were a mess everything from radioto the power mirror controls were a lousy.

A family down the street from me owns a Suburban and the wife has to break out the stepladder to close the hatch. This monster hardly moves except to ferry their 2 kids back and forth to school. I can"t imagine why they need this beast. GM killed station wagons in the 90"s to shift production to the full size soccer mom SUV market, and now their sitting on new car lots. The hybrid Suburban is $53.000 and can only manage 20 mpg city as well as 20 mpg highway, $53 grand, ouch and GM wonders why they are not moving. Affordable wagons need to make a come back as family vehicles, the aero dynamics are more efficient and they can be made lighter.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:08 PM on 04/30/2008

What a shock....Not really and here is why. As we all know GM have been making money hand over fist for the last 40-50 years on cars and trucks that have not been changed to meet the demands of the consumers. Hence the reason Toyoyta is now the biggest and the best. It really boils down to simple math folks. GM can forcast how many cars and trucks they can produce in a given year and based on this they can forcast how much oil/gas that each of these cars and trucks will use. So it's not in there best interest to make cars and trucks that get 40-50 mpg as they know the more crappy cars and trucks they sell that get 15-20 mpg the more there oil stocks will go up and the less money they have to invest in research and development because why would us dumb Americans want a truck that gets 30 or 40 miles to the gallon...Well that's just not manely right boys...Now if GM could just get rid of you troublesome union workers with your average 75.00 per hour. (Toyoyta average 48.00 per hour. No unions). So we can sit back and blame the middle east and the war in iraq, but we should be blaming the CEO's of the car companies as well our own us gov't for not upping the mileage standards for American Cars.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:03 PM on 04/30/2008

There were a couple of brothers on the news the other day with a car they had modified during their spare time in their garage over the past couple of years that gets 100 miles to the gallon and costs about 3,000 to modify. I am guessing that the motor companies were yawning at the time. There is the technology so why won't they do something about it. One women that is a scientist and was on the news about a month ago said that you could modify the carberator to get about 200 miles to the gallon, so what is stopping that. The car industry is so tied to oil that it is no wonder it is going to hell in a handbasket.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:57 PM on 04/30/2008

Not everything you hear in the "news" about 200mpg wonder cars made by some homely inventor is true. A car that actually gets good (not great) mileage and meets a minimum of American consumer expectations in terms of interior space and driving performance looks like the Prius or Civic Hybrid. They both get you to a level of consumption that is comparable to the AVERAGE of the European and Japanese fleets. The reason the Europeans and Japanese can do MUCH better is simply because they are used to and don't mind much smaller cars. But there is no point in bringing these cars to the US. People would simply not buy them. The economic pressure of 8-10$/gallon gas price in Europe requires a different type of car than a very modest $4/gallon gas price in the US. Two years down the road we will see changes even in US consumer behavior, but not, yet. And by that time we will have true 60+mpg hybrids from both Honda and Toyota available.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:06 PM on 04/30/2008

The North American turnaround is occurring," he said.


Wait for it....





W-a-i-t....







Keep waiting.....







[Yawn.]

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:50 PM on 04/30/2008

Any chance the fat cat execs would give back any of their stock option income due to poor economic performance? NOT!
Double edge sword. I feel sympathy for the workers who are the victims of poor planning by management. As for the management, WTF have they been thinking? Large gas guzzling SUV's, Corvettes, but no quality small vehicles with good gas milage? Poor design, fit and finish.
Guess they are waiting for a bailout by Bush. Sound strategy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:08 PM on 04/30/2008

You bonehead, most GM cars are small (the new Malibu for starters). Aveo, Coblat, G5, G6, Aura and more.

Toyota and Honda still makes SUV's. Your ignorance alone is appalling.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:19 PM on 04/30/2008

Sure, but that Coblat is really ugly. What are they getting for mileage?? 30 on a good day rolling downhill on non-ethanol gas??

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:49 PM on 04/30/2008