In the past few days there have been a flurry of conventional media and blog posts about how GM has decided both to unveil the production Chevy Volt and launch its production in an expedited fashion. These articles insinuate that these moves are suddenly taking place because of GMs finanical difficulties.
This began because of a Reuters’ article entitled “GM readies Volt unveiling to shift focus from crisis. ”
That same article declared a “showroom-ready” model will be displayed in September.
Much as I like good Volt news, lets dispel some rumors.
On this site, we have followed Volt news on a highly detailed daily basis literally from the day the concept was first announced in January 2007 (see the first post here ).
It has been my observation that at no point did GM waver from plans to move forward with the Volt. It had always been said this summer would be when the battery contract would be decided upon, and it was clear from the beginning that GM had to convince itself about the batteries being able to handle the tasks before Rick Wagoner could pronounced the “Volt is a go”, meaning production would be funded, as he did on June 3rd.
Furthermore, the plan to unveil the production Volt at GM’s Centennial Celebration in September I suspect has been there all along. The production design has been in the works well over a year, and as chief Designer Bob Boniface told me back in April, GM typically reveals new car designs about 2 years before start of production and generally around large media events. Although never confirmed, people inside GM had hinted to me for some time the Centennial might be that occasion. Thus the title of the Reuters article and the stream of a half dozen or more since is and are unfair.
Furthermore the showroom-ready statement is not accurate either. The car we shall see will be a model that demonstrates what the car will look like, but will not contain the full E-Flex drivetrain. Driveable mules that look close to the Volt will appear by the end of the year, as Micky Bly has told me. It is possible the show car will be that, but I doubt it. Expect those near final prototypes next summer.
Finally there were two rumors started by Holman Jenkins of the Wall Street Journal who claimed the Volt was designed as a political tool by GM to assure the U.S. government would bail them out, and that the ICE would get 15 mpg (see post ).
When GM announced the Volt, oil was $60 per barrel and they had begun designing it a year before that. The reason it was built, I was told directly by GM vice-chair Bob Lutz is that he had wanted to do an electric car for many years and was finally prompted to do so after hearing about Tesla. GM quite obviously did not foresee the current rapid shifts in the US auto market or they would have stopped building trucks earlier. And while we don’t know for sure if the ICE will get the 50 mpg it was billed as being able to, GM sources assure me it will certainly get “a lot more” that 15 mpg.
In the latest perversion of the truth, Autocar is reporting the Volt will actually be in showrooms in 2009.
So lets focus on the facts folks, GM has enough challenges without having to be unfairly portrayed by the press.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 9th, 2008 at 6:47 am and is filed under Public Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Jul 9th, 2008 (6:57 am)Thanks Lyle. There is a lot Hot Air blowing around out there.
Thanks for keeping us straight.
And as far as being inaccurately portrayed in the press, unfortunately GM will have to face that no matter what.
The press simply enjoys it too much. Hopefully, we as a group can help GM and dispel any rumors. Thanks Lyle for taking a crack at it. It is surely helpful.
Jul 9th, 2008 (6:58 am)I agree…just the facts please.
Jul 9th, 2008 (7:00 am)I think the Toyota people are praying GM does not do well so they will do anything to disrupt them. GM is now fully awake and Toyota knows that. GM could go back to their glory days and Toyota is afraid that could happen. GM…keep up the good work and disregard those malicious stories.
Jul 9th, 2008 (7:01 am)Lyle should publish with the Free Press
Jul 9th, 2008 (7:13 am)Makes you wonder how accurate media stories are about topics we know less about.
Jul 9th, 2008 (7:16 am)Great point, Nick #5. I think we simply take those stories for granted. Perhaps we should take them with a grain of salt instead.
Jul 9th, 2008 (7:18 am)It is a known fact in Japan that Toyota no longer took the Detroit three as its strategic competitor in the long-term (does not mean Toyota ignore Volt, instead it is under pressure to beat GM), instead Hyundai is the main headache. Toyota is concerned that big trouble at Detroit will bring backlash against them. Toyota is a company plan thing long-term, much less in Detroit and in USA. My feeling is GM volt will come out in 2010 or 2011, but a few years later, massive recall due to battery premature failure is likely, which may bring GM to chapter 11. Anyway, GM once so proud prowess in China is that most private buyer much prefer Japanese Honda and Toyota due to perceived much better quality.
Jul 9th, 2008 (7:24 am)Yep, I like facts.
Very interesting to see you were peak oil aware back in January 2007, Lyle. Well done.
That 15 mpg claim was crap. I find it amazing that its OK for the Prius to get about 50 mpg, but not the Volt, when in charge depleted mode.
But when do you get to drive a mule? We want first hand reports, please. HINT to GM.
Jul 9th, 2008 (7:29 am)Finally, a very positive article on the Volt.
http://www.rightsideadvisors.com/public/commentary.go/rsa/commentary/comm-dividend/20080708_225558_msg.html/GMs-Volt-is-a-Hybrid-Like-No-Other.html
Jul 9th, 2008 (7:30 am)7 Large Smile:
Umm…not quite. Seeing as I have dealt with one of the primary auto distributors and importers in China I know for a fact that Toyota is “meh” they much prefer Audi and GM SUVs. BMW is also huge over there.
Nice try though, I applaud your effort.
Jul 9th, 2008 (7:34 am)It’s amazing how these news organizations can even call their reporters “reporter”, because they clearly cannot glean information from sources and accurately report them in an article. How they can get so many things wrong, along with outright distortions is beyond me.
There was a time when reporters, eh journalists had to back up their stories with facts and sources. The editor would make sure of the journalistic integrity of a piece before it was printed. I firmly believe that editors don’t do their jobs, they just pass articles through and on to the layout people without so much as an assurance of accuracy.
I think this breakdown in journalistic integrity began with all the media consolidations and acquisitions of the late 1980s. A free and independent press is looking more and more a dream of the past.
All GM has to do is move forward and come out with the near flawless Volt en mass, with more vehicles available than pundits expect, blowing the naysayers out of the water and recapturing its past glory. That would truly be a story for the history books, wouldn’t it?
Jul 9th, 2008 (7:36 am)Keep em straight Lyle! The press wants to see GM fall because its a great story. Personally I wanna see a GM renaissance because it’ll be good for our country. Thanks for all your hardwork!
Jul 9th, 2008 (7:51 am)Lyle, you should send that to the media outlets. Good press for you and the Volt in general!
Jul 9th, 2008 (7:59 am)Thanks Lyle. I hope the media checks this website once in awhile, so that they know what the really skinny is.
Jul 9th, 2008 (8:08 am)12 Dave B
I agree Lyle….you really should send that information out to every media outlet you can think of…do a mass emailing. Good publicity and good exposure for the Volt as well as correcting the misinformation.
Why these reporters don’t come here first or right to GM is beyond me.
Jul 9th, 2008 (8:09 am)Print media is in its death throws due to shoddy and politically motivated reporting.
Each day, more people cease believe what they have to say.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Jul 9th, 2008 (8:22 am)Thanks Lyle for a very good article. Keep up the great work.
Good news about GM’s future is finally making it into the financial world. Here’s a positive article on GM’s future. The Volt is mentioned.
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB121218756175534083.html?mod=rss_barrons_cover_story&referer=sphere_related_content&referer=sphere_related_content&page=1
I may just diversify a little more with my retirement and buy some GM stock.
Jul 9th, 2008 (8:25 am)“Media journalism” and “professional responsibility” are terms that should never be mentioned in the same breath.
Jul 9th, 2008 (8:37 am)I think we thought the Paris show only because their was a thread about it in May…where the idea was actually shot down.
http://gm-volt.com/2008/05/18/production-chevy-volt-to-be-revealed-in-less-than-5-months/
But that was pre-annual report and Wagoner’s ‘very near future’ and the showing was touted as “the Volt will be seen in Paris in US production specification.”
You wrote in that article, “I would imagine, but can’t say for sure, that Europe is not likely to be the first place the world will see the Volt, but more likely, in its home country the U.S. The fact that Paris is aware they will have the production Volt model in October means GM must have planned to have revealed it already by then.”
Jul 9th, 2008 (8:38 am)People, people, people…this fact-based approach is taking us away from our late 20th century/early 21st century discourse mode. As everythying experts, we need to spout off. Facts and truths don’t sell as well as controversy. Let’s stick with our ill-informed opinions, unreasoned speculation, and propoganda (make sure our truthiness aligns with our political inclinations). Here, I’ll start…The Volt is being reverse engineered from alien (area 51) technology. Be free crazy statement. Take wings and propogate in the brain-soil of like-minded people. If someone disagrees with our ideas, yell at them.
But seriously folks, on this site we get informed talking points and substantive responses. We also get other input. That’s the internet/democracy. I sincerely appreciate those that add reason to the conversation. I’m learning a lot.
Jul 9th, 2008 (8:49 am)We said here prototypes by 2007.
http://gm-volt.com/2007/03/06/gm-reiterates-2010-target-launch-date/
It was Wagoner, not the press who said, ““the Chevy Volt is a go”, and “we intend to show a production version of the Chevy Volt publicly in the very near future”
So it’s a little unfair to say, “Furthermore the showroom-ready statement is not accurate either,” when you have the CEO saying it at the biggest GM press junket of the year.
Jul 9th, 2008 (8:53 am)You’ll have to wait for those history books to come out before you can read about the scenario you outline in comment #10, Kevin R. Our current “mainstream media” seems to hate good economic news (especially in an election year), and big business (always); this thing we’re all hoping will happen is both rolled up into one.
“Good Riddance to bad rubbish” indeed. But Tim (#15), where do I carry my old, bundled electrons for recycling?
Jul 9th, 2008 (8:57 am)My post in #18 is a little messed up. I was doing some editing and timed out…there was a ditty about ‘production version’…but just disregard it now, lol. I’m too tired to rewrite it now…
Jul 9th, 2008 (9:11 am)There is so much speculation and misinformation being bandied about who can we believe ?
Lyle, do you have a good B.S. to english dictionary to interpret for us what is realy going on ?
Jul 9th, 2008 (9:16 am)Things don’t look to rosy in the Toyota camp either. Toyota Stock has gone from $106.74 on 6/5/2008 to $93.17 on 7/7/2008. That $13.57 loss constitutes a 12.7% drop in value, in one month. Since the stock is still high, chances are it will keep losing ground while investors dump it in order to retain some of their capital. I see Toyota dropping to $40 while investors wait to see which manufacture puts out the first plug-in.
GM stock, on the other hand, has only one way to go now that it’s reached its low.
Jul 9th, 2008 (9:49 am)In reading Lyle’s facts time line, the thing that makes me nervous as a big supporter of the Volt, is the official (fact based) announcement yet to be made about the battery contract. THAT, may be the big news we can all look forward to next.
Yes, the Volt got the green light based on the battery’s performance, but we all have heard that is the biggest challenge both in it’s technical aspects as well as in how it will affect the cost of the vehicle. Also, there’s been a lot of chat on this site lately about the battery (not fact based necessarily). The longer the wait about the contract, the more anxious one becomes about it’s viability.
My guess, is it will be a compromise of the best options available: longest range vs. cost vs. GM eating some of the cost until the large scale production costs come down.
Jul 9th, 2008 (10:00 am)#25 Nelson
“Things don’t look to rosy in the Toyota camp either. Toyota Stock has gone from $106.74 on 6/5/2008 to $93.17 on 7/7/2008. That $13.57 loss constitutes a 12.7% drop in value, in one month. Since the stock is still high, chances are it will keep losing ground while investors dump it in order to retain some of their capital. I see Toyota dropping to $40 while investors wait to see which manufacture puts out the first plug-in.
GM stock, on the other hand, has only one way to go now that it’s reached its low”
Nelson, I actually agree with you somewhat here. I have been considering betting against Toyota recently. Not because of anything necessarily to do with the company itself, it’s a great company…it just seems overvalued. A car company at 150 billion with surging gas? On top of that, you have the economy on the tipping point of a major recession, the DOW/S&P/NASDAQ now in ‘Bear territory’
The auto sector is starting to feel a little bit like the airline business. None of these companies ‘forward looking’ futures look particularly good…seems like companies would be happy to just ‘hold the line’ the next 4-5 years.
That being said, your statement of, “GM stock, on the other hand, has only one way to go now that it’s reached its low,” is a terrible way to look at investments…if you invest in GM today you still have the potential to lose all your money…even if it is trading at 10 cents. Any stock that has a value can go lower….and things in motion then to stay in motion.
You can’t really make good money betting against GM now, everybody is on that boat and the premiums are too high…I think there is good money to be made betting against Toyota because it has held up so well thus far. Nothing can stop the falling knife of the economy if it worsens further.
Jul 9th, 2008 (10:13 am)Thanks Lyle. Man you are really churning out the material these last few days. It is all that I can do, and more, to keep up. If GM survives as a viable company, I hope that they will include you in the group picture as a valued contributor to same. We will all know it in any case.
Nice thread guys. You are all on a roll today.
I think that Kevin R at #11 summed it up perfectly with his last paragraph. Gsned57 as well at #12. God send that it shall be true.
Jul 9th, 2008 (10:14 am)#17 Todd C
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB121218756175534083.html?mod=rss_barrons_cover_story&referer=sphere_related_content&referer=sphere_related_content&page=1
That article is one of the most thoroughly written, thoughtful, and insightful articles that I have ever read. It proves the point that GM is finally thinking long term and in the end will come out just fine. The businesses that do the best are the ones that think long term and this is what they are doing now. I see a true pick up in 2011 and stability by 2013. Again LONG TERM!!!
Jul 9th, 2008 (10:18 am)Thread update:
We had a thread, “GM May Consider Dropping Some Brands – NOT Chevrolet”
http://gm-volt.com/2008/07/07/gm-may-consider-dropping-some-brands-not-chevrolet/
GM sales chief Mark LaNeve, sent out a note to all Saturn dealerships yesturday saying that they have no plans to ax any more brands from its portfolio.
“We engage you, our dealers, in this process of improving our business…that is the extent of the ‘examination’ that is going on at this time for Saturn or any other GM brand”
GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson said the letter, sent Monday night, was intended to ease dealer worries.
Source: http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200807081426DOWJONESDJONLINE000520_FORTUNE5.htm
…I just thought it was interesting, if anyone follows that sort of thing. (Or if you work at a none ‘Chev-illac’ dealership)
Jul 9th, 2008 (10:28 am)Let’s dispel the rumors.
1. GM had $24 billion in cash and a $4.5 billion credit line on its books at the end of 1Q’08.
2. It needs, by most estimates, $10 billion for working capital to run its business. Go below this level, and your suppliers put you on cash terms only.
3. GM’s cash-burn rate (not counting its $38 billion loss due to the right-down of tax credits) is ~ $3 billion per quarter, based on its perfromance over the past 2 years. This is for vehicle operations only, and doesn’t allow for further (probable) losses on the 49% of GMAC that is still on its books.
4. Unless one expects a miraculous turnaround in the US economy in the next 12 months, GM will probably burn up at least $12 billion by the end of 2Q’09, assuming things don’t get worse. After the strike at American Axle in 2Q’08, one should probably expect they’ll get worse.
5. Assuming the above – my sources are the WSJ, Morningstar, etc. -I wager GM will file for bankruptcy by 3Q’09, preceeded by Chrysler. Ford has more cash on hand and will probably survive a bit longer.
6. One final comment. Although GM will “file for bankruptcy” in 2009, that step is only formal recognition of what has been obvious for some time to anyone who could/would read GM’s Balance Sheet. Their long-term liabilities, reflective of poor management decisions over the past three decades and greedy unions, greatly exceed its financial capacity to pay them. Sad, but true.
Jul 9th, 2008 (10:28 am)#26 David says: “Yes, the Volt got the green light based on the battery’s performance, but we all have heard that is the biggest challenge both in it’s technical aspects as well as in how it will affect the cost of the vehicle.”
————————————————————————————-
Actually, most of the engineers developing the Volt have said that the battery is not the biggest technical challenge. The chassis guy reminds us that there is a huge “T”-shaped hole in the bottom of the car. The HVAC guys are talking about the difficulty in designing efficient all-electric HVAC systems.
There’s also a ton of low level software (a.k.a. firmware) for the induction motor, battery management, and other control systems. All this firmware has to be tweaked as the the various systems are integrated together. Remember how Bob Lutz said the car jumped when the ICE generator turned on? All these types of firmware integration issues will have to be ironed out.
Also remember that, unlike personal computers, automobiles put people’s lives on the line, so the firmware has to be relatively bug free when the first car is sold. From a schedule point of view, the firmware will probably be the biggest technical challenge.
Jul 9th, 2008 (10:47 am)There’s an article on CNN.com about Nissan and their plans for an EV. More interesting within this article is that it says Mitsubishi has a 99 MPC EV and Subaru has a 50 MPC EV that will be available in Japan next year.
Look’s like the Volt is already getting some competition!
I tried copying and pasting the link from CNN here, but when I do that, my comment doesn’t post.
Jul 9th, 2008 (10:48 am)It would be wise of GM to get the Volt out sooner than later. With more and more electric / hybrid cars on the way…they will lose sales to those if they don’t get this car out in the showrooms soon. I wouldn’t be surprised if they had this out in late 2009 or early 2010.
Jul 9th, 2008 (11:22 am)I would like to see GM get a fully electric version of the Volt in the showrooms by next fall without the ICE. Give us 30 miles per charge and it should sell good. Everyone is trying to produce an electric commuter car, it seems, so why not GM. They would not even have to call it a Volt or use the body design. Just slap the batteries and such in a Cobalt or smaller car and see what it would do.
As far as news reports are concerned, I stopped believing much of what the press said years ago. They have their own agenda and it does not agree with most Americans. Enough said.
Jul 9th, 2008 (11:23 am)#33 Kent
The Mitsu is the i-Miev…and is real. Probably the only EV to hit the streets in 2009 for sure. The Nissan is still vaporware. Subaru is interesting because it has Toyota behind it (part ownership), so it ‘could’ push something out the doors in ’09, whether it does or not remains to be seen.
Only the i-Miev is functioning ‘in mass’ in the real world atm, I think that is the yardstick to measure all these cars with.
Today Mitsu gave out their first non – electric company fleet tester (they are currently at 8 dfifferent hydro companies).
To the Kanagawa POLICE force no less…here it is all ‘badged up’
http://www.autobloggreen.com/photos/mitsubishi-i-miev-police-car/908881/
Other related EV/hybrid/Lithium battery news:
Hyundai announced today that the LG Chem-supplied battery underpinning the hybrid component of the car (Elantra LPI) will actually be lithium polymer (li-poly) as opposed to the lithium ion type that had been previously publicized/
Interesting because instead of being in a solvent, the battery is held in a polymer (duh).
Hyundai offically says the advantages are, “”…higher energy density, lower manufacturing costs, being more robust to physical damage and they can also take more charge–discharge cycles before storage capacity begins to degrade.”
Offical press release:
http://worldwide.hyundai-motor.com/common/html/about/news_event/press_read_2008_23.html
Jul 9th, 2008 (11:25 am)The sad reality of the news biz is: Sometimes you have to “dress up” the truth a little to move newspapers. Touch up the truth a little. In other words, if the story’s boring, LIE.
You can always print a retraction a couple of days later on page 13, in the classified section. In really small print.
When you deal with reporters, you have to expect things like this. A story about Volts available in 2012 just isn’t as exciting as a story about Volts available in 2009.
Jul 9th, 2008 (11:57 am)BMW certainly is the ‘sneakiest’ of the automakers. You rarely know what they are doing, and the new model designs seem to come out of nowhere (except now for the 7 series…the redesign before last was horrendous and now they are tried and true).
As soon as I write the i-Miev is the only EV hitting the market in 2009, BMW makes me look like a fool! Curses!
BMW builds electric Mini for California.
http://www.autonews.com/article/20080709/COPY01/289508976/1197
MUNICH — BMW plans to export nearly 500 electric versions of its Mini car to California, company sources said.
The electric Minis are being built at the Mini factory in Oxford, England, without engines, gearboxes or fuel tanks, then shipped to Munich, Germany, where they are being fitted with electric powertrains.
BMW sources told Automotive News Europe that 490 of the Minis will be leased to selected customers in California and 10 will be used as show cars.
BMW engineers working on the electric Minis are part of a new division called Project i established by the automaker to develop low-emission city cars.
The electric Minis will help BMW to meet new California regulations that will require carmakers selling cars in the state to offer zero emission vehicles.
Jul 9th, 2008 (12:25 pm)Thanks for jumping in Lyle,
Someone needs to put the pieces together and dispel bad assumptions.
I hope the wall street journal is listening.
Also, my hats off to Tesla for giving GM that nudge they needed to take the plunge again. I can’t blame them for being cautious after the results of their 1st attempt. I’m glad now that they have passed the point of no return and have started ramping up for production
Jul 9th, 2008 (12:40 pm)Lyle: “GM has enough challenges without having to be unfairly portrayed by the press”
While some of the “press” may have spouted off mis-information… GM has to suck up some of the blame itself. Different folks from GM giving contradicting information…. the whole marketing thing w/GM insistent that the Volt was *NOT* a (series) hybrid but a “range extended” EV (it’s actually both a RE-EV and a series hybrid, in essence synonyms)…. the now infamous GM statement that the Volt would be priced “comfortably under $30k”…. and so on.
GM also has past history hanging over it’s head… while GM was unfairly singled out (when the other auto makers were doing the same thing as GM) in the documentary “Who killed the electric car?”, they had plenty of dirt on their hands that built up plenty of mistrust with the press and public (and it doesn’t help that GM is still spinning the facts).
While I thank Lyle for his work, it’s important to remember this is a “fan” site and hence at times Lyle’s posts can be a little biased (possibly unintentionally) sometimes. Also can’t blame him… if one wants to keep access to GM, and going to their press junkets, etc, you don’t want to say anything to piss GM off.
I’m a big FAN of EV’s in general, and that includes GM’s Volt, but by no means exclusively to the Volt. I applaud GM for appearing to be the 1st major auto maker to mass produce an EV, and I certainly hope it’s a success.
For folks interested in seeing a broader view of what’s happening out in the EV World, I suggest also visiting http://www.evworld.com/ …. Bill Moore, the editor, just celebrated the 10th anniversary of that site. I’m sure Lyle has run into him on the road somewhere.
Jul 9th, 2008 (12:55 pm)First time poster here…so apologies if I offend anyone.
I would lke to raise a few points on several posts here.
GM is sticking to its plans, story writers (not journalists) and “financial advisers” that rate stocks like doing the dismal forecast outlook, doom and gloom. Why? it lowers stocks. Then they buy it low and sell it high. (look at the profit statements from investment firms) They base it all on guess work (look at the sales forecast that GM FAR exceeded, and how Toyota WAAAY underperformedyet the Stocks price DROPPED because analyst said, oh well good sales are not a good indicator, change rating to sell(so the price drops again)). Additionally, GM has enough cash to go to Q3’09 like one poster said WITHOUT borrowing.., and yes Ford has more cash, but Ford also MORTGATED its NA operations to do it..If GM did the same, its financial balance sheet will show a LOT more cash to survive. Chapter 11? or 7? nope, don’t think so. Additionally..The governement will NOT let GM go down, the cost to America would be devastating beyond belief relative to the economy, That was Iaccoca’s aurgument. Yes its 50,000 (random numbers here) workers directly, but the spin off losses affect MILLIONS (suppliers and the like), and then all the places they make purchases at, stores restraurants etc…
Also, Japanese cars are not better, not saying they are worse, but they are simply the media darlings. When consumer reports (a JOKE publication if ever there was one) rate them as excellent without needing to test…HELLO?!?!? WTF? like saying little Johnny gets an A+ cuz he is such a good boy..(meanwhile Lil J is setting fire to the neighbors lexus..). Most automotive “story writers” will automatically rate NA cars lower, “EXPERT RATING 7.2, USER rating 9.5″ look all over ..use the MSN compare autos, pick a GM (or ford or Chrysler) and a Japanese equivalent, read the reviews, they list similar pros and cons, yet the NA cars score lower. THEN go to the dealers and actually look at what was written..BS and balderdash.. I work where I rent all kinds of cars everywhere I travel..the Japanese are no better, and as far as convenience packages.. America kicks A**. Last Accord I had, when I locked out the passenger windows, I could not operate the drivers either?!?! you can in a CHEV.
Toyota is over rated, I laughed when GM announced something or other about the batteries, someone at Toyota commented that if they were deveolloping a “Volt” they would already be picking out the wood trim, not working on the batteries, then GM replies, well, there is no wood trim in a VOLT, THEN…TOyota announces that they TOO will build an EV by 2010..Nice to know they must have already picked out the trim..
LOL…
Buy GM stock..Ford too for that matter…you can Quadruple you $$ in 12 months..Bank on it.
I own ONLY GM – Chev in particular, as for the fact that many Japanese brands being built in the USA? hogwash..all they are doing is destroying the middle class..people are actually friigin GRATEFUL that they get a good buck, can’t unionize, no financial protection in a job loss. by the way here are a few benefits, now shut up or we can and will take your job away and give it to some other poor shmuck who will be more grateful..
(BTW I think that some union problems exist and the system is not perfect, but there is strength in #s)
Jul 9th, 2008 (12:58 pm)Bernie Torbik, if GM has $24B in cash they would seem to be sitting ducks for a take over…. with a market cap (which is stock price times number of outstanding shares) of $6.11B according to finance.yahoo.com then someone could make a take over play and then pay for the transaction with the cash that GM has on hand.
Only thing that could be stopping someone would be the buyer would be assuming a lot more than $24B in debts and liability. Ie. book value of GM is less than the market cap.
????
Jul 9th, 2008 (1:17 pm)42 Jeff M – Take a look at GM’s financial results on Yahoo Finance, and Google “Carl Icahn and GM”. He thought GM was a good buy once upon a time, and lost billions as the bad news kept coming, and coming, and coming…
Many companies have a lot of cash on their balance sheets, but aren’t takeover targets because their financial prospects are abysmal, e.g., GM. Even Merrill Lynch – not exactly a stellar performer these days, either – has belatedly woken up to the fact that GM is bankrupt in all but name only.
Buy the stock if you’d like, and I wish you well. But I’d bet that within a year, you’ll have little to show for it other than a tax loss.
Jul 9th, 2008 (1:21 pm)Jeff M:
The Barron’s article is very telling. in 2010 GM’s long term debt is nearly halved. That is HUGE, they also dump their average labor cost by about $20 to only a little bit higher than Toyota. At that point GM can actually turn profit and compete on small car margins.
The early months of 2010 is when GM is most vulnerable to takeover it would seem.
Jul 9th, 2008 (1:42 pm)Does anyone actually work at GM to really know what is going on or do you all just come up with your assumptions based on what you read? Is anyone a member of the UAW to really know what the employees are paid or to know what the contract reads in relation to the company?
Jul 9th, 2008 (2:27 pm)Why isin’t OUR government helping it’s people by helping with the VOLT. Brazil is laughing at us cuz they use their domestic sugarcane for fuel. Datsun and Portugal are building electric cars and a CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE. Norway is building the Hydrogen Highway. I am ashamed to be governed by old greedy retards. We need to live ONLY on what energy we have in THIS countrty. The VOLT can do it. What is wrong with our government that it won’t help? Can anyone tell me ?
Jul 9th, 2008 (2:41 pm)#41 mitch
You jumped in with both feet. Yes, as Lyle’s topic siggests, it is hard to know who to trust. There are so many parties with their own interests at play; conventional media, blogs, analysts, story writers, financial advisers, Obama, McCain, unions, mangement. It is tough to find a sensei that continues to make sense. For example, many voted for W, trusting that he would do us right. Polling data suggest that many lost faith in him (do you believe the polls?). What do we believe? Who do we believe in? I believe in the Volt – GO VOLT! For that matter, go electric autos! Push auto technology to the next phase. A lot of good will spring from that.
Jul 9th, 2008 (3:02 pm)#46 fred asks: “Why isin’t OUR government helping it’s people by helping with the VOLT. … I am ashamed to be governed by old greedy retards. We need to live ONLY on what energy we have in THIS countrty. The VOLT can do it. What is wrong with our government that it won’t help? Can anyone tell me ?”
————————————————————————————
The last time this came before the Senate, there were not enough votes to override a presidential veto. See here for more details:
http://gm-volt.com/2008/05/26/gm-ceo-misquoted-about-chevy-volt-price-and-timing-want-it-for-less-get-tax-credits-passed/
Specifically, here is the list of Senators that voted against voted agaist the bill:
Alexander (R-TN), Allard (R-CO), Barrasso (R-WY), Bennett (R-UT), Bond (R-MO), Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Burr (R-NC), Chambliss (R-GA), Coburn (R-OK), Cochran (R-MS), Corker (R-TN), Cornyn (R-TX), Craig (R-ID), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), Dole (R-NC), Domenici (R-NM), Ensign (R-NV), Enzi (R-WY), Graham (R-SC), Gregg (R-NH), Hagel (R-NE), Hutchison (R-TX), Inhofe (R-OK), Isakson (R-GA), Kyl (R-AZ), Landrieu (D-LA), Lott (R-MS), Martinez (R-FL), McConnell (R-KY), Roberts (R-KS), Sessions (R-AL), Shelby (R-AL), Specter (R-PA), Stevens (R-AK), Sununu (R-NH), Vitter (R-LA), Voinovich (R-OH), Warner (R-VA).
If you happen to live in one of the states listed above, please call or write your senator and ask they they support plug-in hybrids like the Volt.
Jul 9th, 2008 (3:21 pm)#48 Dave G
If I remember that bill correctly, there were a lot of pork and other things added to the bill that made it impossible to get support from both parties. The Democrats set the bill up knowing they would not get enough votes from some of their own members, even fewer from the Republicans. They would have loved to get over 60 votes but failed by tacking on unnecessary junk.
Jul 9th, 2008 (3:26 pm)Neither party seems willing to give the other side what they want or compromise on what they themselves want to get a good energy policy passed. It is up to us, the American people, to find the cause of the problem and vote it out next election. Sometimes it is just due to cost of the pork programs added, other times it is due to the type of policies put forth in the bill. It is not always simple and easy. Both parties must learn to work together, but I don’t think that is going to happen, no matter who is elected as President. We need to pretty much clean house in both houses of congress. Same for the different agencies of government. But how do you do it? One congressman or senator at a time is the only way I can see it being done. That or revolution.
Jul 9th, 2008 (3:31 pm)Lyle, thanks for the work you do for us. I believe GM had this plan a long time ago. I don’t think they have modified it much based on fuel cost or their financial situation, although they might have done some modification. I wish one modification they could do is to get the Volt out a year early. I would love to see GM beat Toyota by at least a year with a plug-in vehicle. Even with a smaller battery and less EV range. I would accept that and I think most of us would also. GM tell us that you are doing it to help ease the pain at the pump and that you will continue to work to bring the full 40+ EV range Volt out over the next year or two. We would all love that.
Go GM and Go, Go, Go Volt.
Jul 9th, 2008 (3:33 pm)#46 fred
Help has occurred in the past. There were tax benefits for buying hybrids. Both candidates say they will help plug-ins. The candidates may differ on how to help, but both want to help.
The help will be in the form of proposed legislation. The help involves money, which has to come from somewhere. Whoever loses money to pay for the help will complain.
The politicians’ vote on the “help” legislation will factor in career preservation; meaning they will follow the party line. The Volt seems to cross party lines. Maybe the stars are aligned for Volt help.
Help seems simple, but gets complicated very fast.
Jul 9th, 2008 (3:35 pm)fred,
Nice idealism, but if the US lived on only the energy available here, we’d need to live in mud huts.
You first (g).
Be well,
Tag
Jul 9th, 2008 (3:36 pm)#49 N Riley
If I recall correctly, only one democratic senator (LA) voted against that legislation.
Jul 9th, 2008 (3:44 pm)#50 N Riley
Nowadays, blind partisanship causes gridlock on so many issues. Working together seems impossible. How does one vote out partisanship in a two-party system? It seems like political suicide to defy the party.
Jul 9th, 2008 (3:50 pm)Personally, I thank God that Congress is deadlocked on just about everything. That way it minimizes their harm.
JMO,
Tag
Jul 9th, 2008 (3:56 pm)Some 70 year old Texas oil man worth $4B has been running I believe national ads…. he’s pushing wind power to displace natural gas power plants… and using that displaced natural gas to power natural gas internal combustion engine vehicles. See http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/
I like his push for wind power… but I hope it displaces coal fired power plants instead of natural gas plants… and we use off peak power from the wind farms to charge up our plug-in’s.
He computes we could be producing 20% of our electricity at a cost of $1.2T(rillion) ($1T for the wind mills, $200M for the extra infrastructure to deliver that power).
Jul 9th, 2008 (4:00 pm)#57 Jeff M
Then let’s spend the other $6 Trillion and produce it all using wind. Of course, it never is that simple.
Jul 9th, 2008 (4:10 pm)to j man@45
‘Does anyone actually work at GM to really know what is going on or do you all just come up with your assumptions based on what you read? Is anyone a member of the UAW to really know what the employees are paid or to know what the contract reads in relation to the company”
*******************************************************
There may not be many who works for GM on this site, but I believe we have many who works for Toyota….if you know what I mean,
Jul 9th, 2008 (4:15 pm)Tagamet, you are right about deadlock…. more than one study has looked at history of when the stock market and the economy has done the best…. and it’s usually when there is deadlock. It’s done worse when one party has control of all 3 branches.
However we are at a real cross roads. The current oil focused (and dismissing it’s effect on global warming) administration has set us back, not to mention diverting so much of our tax dollars at the boondoggle (for Dick’s cronies) known as Iraq. The rest of the G8 is no better with the lame non-binding agreement to reduce CO2 emissions only in half by 2050.
One thing congress does agree on is erroding the 4th admendment and immunizing not only the telecom companies but the President (and I’m sure probably some senators of both parties who probably could have been implicated as well). Unbelievable.
I’ve been a long time proponent of term limits for all members of congress, not just the Presidency. But with such an admendment needing to pass congress first, it would never fly.
edit (my previous post)… that should be $200B(illion) not $200M for the power line infrastructure
Jul 9th, 2008 (4:16 pm)#55 ThombDbhomb asks: “Nowadays, blind partisanship causes gridlock on so many issues. Working together seems impossible. How does one vote out partisanship in a two-party system?”
———————————————————————————–
The best way would be to get rid of primaries. Instead of a primary, you would have a general election in the spring, where anyone can vote for any candidate they want, regardless of party. The two candidates with the most votes would move on to a runoff election in November. These two candidates may be from the same or different parties. With this type of system:
1) Gerry-mandering of Congressional districts would be irrelevant. For example, if a district was heavily Republican, then there would be 2 Republican candidates running against each other in November. So gerry-mandering would no longer insure that incumbents stay in power.
2) Term limits wouldn’t be as necessary, since most incumbents would have real competition in November.
3) There would always be a clear majority in November. No more Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, etc. to muddy the waters.
4) There would be no need to register to a party in order to vote in the spring general election.
5) People would be forced to stop blindly voting for columns, and actually look at the candidates they are voting for.
This type of system was proposed in California a few years back. Unfortunately, the referendum was defeated due to a heavily financed, well organized media campaign against it.
The bottom line is this: The current 2 party system is really good at keeping incumbents in power. This essentially makes our votes count less. In other words, the current 2 party system is actually fairly un-democratic.
Jul 9th, 2008 (4:19 pm)These are yesterday’s media blunders and outright lies. That WSJ moron also claimed the Volt would be strictly a “city car” – just about the last place I’d try to merchandise a car that needs to plug in would be to city dwellers. He also claimed GM would lose money on every Volt.
I counted about 20 media outlets that picked up the confused “Rush to Production September” story and some thought it meant that that was when the Volt was going into production. Others thought that and also that the reason for the sudden rush was because either 1) Toyota showed plans for its solar roofed Prius or 2) Gm was looking to shift attention away from slumping sales, a strange strategy : premiering a new model in September to distract attention from early July.
The big stupid today was the claim that GM has suddlenly changed its gas tank system and will now have a range of 320 miles,
which some media morons claimed was to lose weight and help MPG (as if it would be detectable or that the Volt needs more MPG)
or that it was a cost cutting scheme. No one knew about the fear of gasoline sitting in the tanks for months and going sour. They all thought it was new news. Now, just how long ago was it that we first learned this? Was it 4 months? Five months? Anybody want to guess the reason the public is so ignorant and confused about so many things? Look who’s feeding them their information.
Jul 9th, 2008 (4:43 pm)Folks…the only way things MAY change for the good and get us off of an oil based transportation system is if there is a democratic house, senate and president in office this November. Otherwise, you’ll see what you see now…..and more of it. The Republicans had it all, Senate, House and Presidency and you see where we are…..they had their chance and voted to keep us in bondage.
Jul 9th, 2008 (4:58 pm)#63 Kevin R says: “…the only way things MAY change for the good and get us off of an oil based transportation system is if there is a democratic house, senate and president in office this November.”
————————————————————————————
I think I’m beginning to agree with you. I’m an independant voter and normally don’t go for the party thing, but pragmatically, our best chance of standing up to big oil and passing legislation that promotes plug-ins and flex-fuel vehciles would probably be with democrats in all 3 houses.
Jul 9th, 2008 (4:59 pm)Dave G, I’m also all for getting rid of a party based system and having everyone run essentially as an independent, so that no one has to adhere to a party platform in order to get financing.
However first of all I don’t feel that reduces in any way the argument for congressional term limits…. you’d still have an incumbant with a substantial advantage. Not only do they have the name recognition and free advertising (they get a communications budget to send mailings to their consituants), but it’s to the voters own advantage to re-elect the incumbant… the incumbants in each house of congress with the most seniority are the ones that get the committe chairmanships, more power to “bring home the pork”.
Also getting rid of party primaries could also be a problem…. let’s say it was a 5 person race, 2 each from the current 2 major parties and the 5th unaffilated. The 2 republicans could evenly split that vote, same with the democrats, leaving a big door for the 5th candidate who may not have won had it only been only 1 from each major party running. Of course the solution is that you have a run-off election for the top X vote getters if no one person got a simple majority. But in a way that ends up making the general election essentially a primary.
Additionally I’m not sure you could get rid of the party primaries… legally they are free to decide that they want to get together and support a single candidate. Anyone who doesn’t get their parties nomination can still run in the general election as long as they can get enough signatures in each State to get on that State’s ballot. In theory you don’t even need to get on every State’s ballot in order to win the general election… you just need to get that magic 270 electoral college votes which could be done by being only on 1/2 the ballots.
I say term limits first… that would then make it easier for 3rd party candidates to win congressional seats to get their parties established, and then to have a real shot at the Presidency.
Jul 9th, 2008 (5:00 pm)N. Riley@#49
Actually I don’t think it was pork in the bill — everyone is for that — it was the offsets. The Dems wanted to offset the costs of the energy incentives by changing the way medical insurance companies are paid under Medicare. Since this would result in less government payments to the big medical insurance companies, and since paying insurance companies less would be a national tragedy, the Republicans blocked it. FWIW the same “principled” desire to protect the needy insurance companies is behind the Republican’s desire to block higher payments for doctors.
AFAIK everything Republicans stand for nowadays can be distilled down to what advances the interests of big oil, big pharma, or medical insurance companies. The national interest has been forgotten, which is probably the reason that the Republican brand is in the toilet.
Jul 9th, 2008 (5:02 pm)Kevin R
Couldn’t disagree with you more. What happened to the Dems promise to immediately lower the price of gasoline? The Dems just redistribute money by taxing everything</b If your wish comes true, I’ll be lookoing for a lot next door to Statik (just so I can annoy him).
Let’s just agree to disagree on this topic.
Be well,
Tag
Jul 9th, 2008 (5:39 pm)Tagamet@#67
Well, how about the Republican’s promise to bring back the tooth fairy? Only kidding of course. Then again I don’t think Dems promised to immediately lower the price of gasoline. The only promise along those lines I know of was the infamous McCain/Clinton idea for a “gas tax holiday”. That at least had the advantage of being simple bi-partisan pandering. It was designed to get a few votes, not advance the financial interests of a consituency group.
Actually I wasn’t trying to be political. I was just trying to lay blame where I think blame is due. (For me killing an incentive for the Volt in order to protect the financial interests of medical insurance companies is a bad decision). I wish things were different and that the Republicans had some ideas other than to follow the bidding of, well, you know who. I’d welcome a well thought out energy policy. It can’t be that hard. T Boone Pickens, who has always been a very big Republican supporter, has seen the light. Hopefully the Republicans leadership will wake up, smell the coffee, and get on board. National security should not be a partisan issue. We need everyone working together.
BTW absolutely no offense taken by me. But I won’t move next to to Statik to prove it!
Jul 9th, 2008 (5:48 pm)We need to stop electing politicians and elect a proven business leader to run our country. Guliani (sp?) and Bloomberg were not in the political arena till the ran for mayor of NYC. I am sure every decision they have made is not perfect I do know that NYC has been made a better place.
The one requirement that I have is that if you have run an auto company you can not run.
Jul 9th, 2008 (6:03 pm)If you are reading this today and soon…. the Nightly Business Report (on PBS) in the lead in said something about GM’s plug-in Volt… more free press is good press.
Jul 9th, 2008 (6:12 pm)I too think I have to vote for the Dems to get real change on energy policy…. however like all politics for us independents, it’s a lesser of two (major party) evils. Obama, coming from the mid-west, seems to be in bed with the farm lobby and especially the corn based ethanol lobby. On top of that, he’s only luke warm on building more nuclear energy plants.
While McCain’s solution is to drill our way out of it (because just saying we will do so it will immediately drop the price… yea right, I have a bridge to sell him too), at least McCain has proposed getting rid of the tarrif on imported ethanol, like from Brazil. Right now that 53 cents/gallon tarrif has artifically inflated the price… given my gas is 10% ethanol, that’s 5.3 cents per gallon at the pump. If ethanol can’t stand on it’s own (w/no import tarrif) even with record high oil prices, and record high corn prices, then let’s stop spending our tax payer dollars on it!
Jul 9th, 2008 (6:20 pm)Ok, back on topic… and why GM deserves some bad press… I just watched the Nightly Business Report segment that had at least a couple minutes on GM’s EV development. Showed them testing the battery packs.
However here is the stunt GM pulled… the report mentions that GM had previously done an EV, the EV-1, back 10 years ago… they even had the camera on the slides GM was showing… and what was GM doing? Comparing the Volt with it’s Li-Ion batteries to the EV-1 not with it’s advanced NiMH battery, but the original EV-1 with lead acid batteries! Talk about GM spin! We all know the lead acid batteries, especially those broken Delco ones, were crap in the original EV-1′s. It was when GM switched the the Cobasys NiMH that it shined… and would be the one that would make the most sense to compare to the Volt.
Jul 9th, 2008 (6:25 pm)Anything that come from Fox News Corp (WSJ) is not fair or balance. Go GM and show them wrong. Mr. Volt…As always, great job.
Jul 9th, 2008 (6:31 pm)My requirement is if your family is in the oil business you cannot run. And the elected president cannot add big oil men to his cabinet. This is what was done the last time with W and we sure have seen the results of that boondoggle. TED
Jul 9th, 2008 (6:47 pm)#67 Tag
I’ll be looking for a lot next door to Statik (just so I can annoy him).
Lol. Your more than welcome, I was out looking at a new place today, I’ll see if the neighbours will sell to you.
Side note: Notice how far away I am keeping from this ‘political debate’…(and crazy, crazy automaker conspiracy theories)
/wants no part
Jul 9th, 2008 (7:11 pm)#73 Hous Volt Pharteen says, “Anything that come from Fox News Corp (WSJ) is not fair or balance.”
It doesn’t matter if it is fair and balanced. They just need to show the Volt in a good light.
Jul 9th, 2008 (7:46 pm)#53
I’ll be fine in a one bath mud hut with solar panels charging my VOLT so long as i can buy food, and drink, to share with, and take a ride, and visit friends.
What more is there to life?
I would think a leader would try to make the it’s citizens able to live a decent life. Unfortunately I have not seen that lately. I don’t think this country is capable of leading. (Domination or war, is not leading)
Idealism? What do you need? I will disagree with you that mud huts would be all that was available. The ruling elite would have McMansions and the rest of us would be paying tribute.
What is wrong with our selfish government?
Jul 9th, 2008 (7:48 pm)#67 Tagamet,
“I’ll be lookoing for a lot next door to Statik”
Idle threat, everyone knows he’s selling his house.
Gosh, if history serves I think if government was always in deadlock there would be a much better chance of us living in huts (leather for me please) than the other way around. Besides, what would we drive our Volts on? Everthing in “proper” balance, JMO.
Jul 9th, 2008 (7:49 pm)Dammit Lyle!!!
Stop it with these headlines getting my expectations up about the an early Volt. I can’t take it, it gets me too excited! Waiting for the Volt is like Chinese water torture!!!
–
DA
Jul 9th, 2008 (8:59 pm)We’re talking politics and were are not flaming each other. Maybe there is hope (Obama buzz word not intended). Good work people. The good thing about the two party system is only things that really matter to both parties get through – but it sure is ugly getting there. The Volt seems like one of those things we can agree on. However, based on previous discussions here, even we can’t agree on the degree of government involvement for plug-ins or BEVs.
I agree with #50 N Riley that we need to clean house and get “good” people in place. But, his “good” is probably different from my “good.” Democracy is messy.
Jul 9th, 2008 (9:10 pm)Jeff M #65
“Dave G, I’m also all for getting rid of a party based system and having everyone run essentially as an independent, so that no one has to adhere to a party platform in order to get financing”
*** *** ***
Even if that were possible, the majority of issues generally fall into a dichotomy. You’re either for something or against it, you’re either for higher taxes or not, etc. etc etc. You’ll always have a left side and a right side, a liberal side and a conservative side. Soon enough the press would start labeling congressmen/women as either “C” or “L” and no sooner we’d be right back in the old Elephant and Donkey show.
Jul 9th, 2008 (10:28 pm)Grizzly, I’m not sure I agree with that assessment of what would happen… I feel most Americans at heart are closer to the “middle”, ie. more moderate, than the two opposing party platforms.
Sure, the media and individuals will still call folks “left” or “right” on their stance on individual issues, but not overall. I’m sure some will still lean in one direction more than the other, and to different degrees (some even so much that they match today’s politititions).
And I don’t believe the “liberal” vs. “conservative” labels work (“left” vs. “right” works a little better) because I’m a fiscal conservative and the supposed “conservative” party is nothing but. Tax cuts with out paying for them and instead just racking up the national debt is not being conservative to me. Neither Regan nor the current Bush are fiscal conveservatives. It took the first “moderate” Bush (Sr) and Clinton to start to restore this countries fiscal health, and I didn’t mind paying a little more in taxes to do so (I never actaully even noticed them, my pay went up substantially during those years, it wasn’t until Bush Jr. took office that my nice paying software engineering job was “off shored” while the “convervatives” controlled all 3 branches).
In any case, it’s a moot point… I don’t ever expect to see more than two “major” parties in my life time, never mind an end to the party based system all together. I give congressional term limits a better chance… but even that’s extremely slim as congress wouldn’t vote for a constitutional admendment that if ratified would end their cushy jobs.
Jul 9th, 2008 (11:41 pm)Dave G @ # 48,
“The last time this came before the Senate, there were not enough votes to override a presidential veto. See here for more details:
http://gm-volt.com/2008/05/26/gm-ceo-misquoted-about-chevy-volt-price-and-timing-want-it-for-less-get-tax-credits-passed/
Specifically, here is the list of Senators that voted against voted agaist the bill:”
————————————————————–
There seems to be a bit of confusion concerning the two bills in question. H.R. 5351, The Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008, was introduced in the House on Feb. 12, 2008 and passed by the House on Feb. 27, 2008. The bill has yet to be introduced for a vote in the Senate. There has been no presidential veto. The list of senators who supposedly voted against the bill included senator Trent Lott (MS) who retired on Dec. 18, 2007. That date was before the bill was even introduced in the House of Representatives, let alone subject to a Senate vote. I suspect the confusion may arise because there was another H.R. 5351, The National Emergency Management Reform and Enhancement Act of 2006. That 2006 Bill had nothing to do with tax credits for the Volt. The 2008 Bill is the one that includes up to a $6,000 tax credit ($4,000 base for a 5 kWh minimum, plus up to $2,000 extra large batteries) for electric vehicles. The 2008 HR 5351 is expected to meet stiff resistance in the Senate because of other measures in the Bill.
H.R. 6049 has also passed the House, but has yet to be voted on in the Senate. This Bill contains provisions for a $5,000 tax credit for electric vehicles. ( $3,000 base plus up to a max of $2,000 extra according to the kWh rating of the battery)
Jul 9th, 2008 (11:56 pm)#83 57silver
Thanks for clarifying
Jul 10th, 2008 (6:48 am)#74 Ted in Fort Myers – “My requirement is if your family is in the oil business you cannot run. And the elected president cannot add big oil men to his cabinet. This is what was done the last time with W and we sure have seen the results of that boondoggle. TED”
Can anyone really be as naive as to believe a handful of people (Big Oil in the Whitehouse) could manipulate the market as easily as is being implied? If that’s the case then why are there not little enclaves of omniponent people manipulating different sectors of the markets? Perhaps there is a secret society that is controlling the worlds markets and we are all but pawns and they caused the housing bubble and crash. Hey better yet, perhaps they are all space aliens looking to cause such chaos and mayhem that they will be able to come in and pick up the pieces and all get filthy rich!
Here’s one for ya. The Volt technology is alien derived!
Jul 10th, 2008 (7:51 am)Statik,
I am not that savy on the stock market but I see a developing trend and want your opinion…
1) Is LG Chem stock high or low because they have their fingers in all the car batteries coming out. Would LG be a good stock for short or long term? The only thing I know about them is LG is the GE of Asia, like Electrolux is the GE of Europe.
2) Has GM stock bottomed out to buy for short term? The announcement of the Volt should be good for what… a short term $10 spike in price and then sell?
Advise us Obi-Wan… Your our only hope…
Jul 10th, 2008 (8:53 am)I spoke too soon.
Jul 10th, 2008 (12:48 pm)#34 (JB) – I agree with you. Should be done asap before the market is flooded.
Jul 11th, 2008 (7:02 am)[...] that a showroom ready version of the car will be revealed in September. According to Lyle at GM-Volt.com, “the plan to unveil the production Volt at GM’s Centennial Celebration in September I suspect [...]