GM posts $865-million profit for first quarter

[Skjellyfetti]

General Motors this morning announced an $865-million net profit for the first three months of the year, the first time the Detroit automaker has posted positive quarterly results since 2007 and a major victory coming out of bankruptcy reorganization last summer.

GM reported an operating income of $1.2 billion on $31.5 billion in revenue.

“We’re pleased with our first-quarter performance, in particular achieving profitability,” Chris Liddell, GM vice chairman and chief financial officer, said in a statement. “In North America we are adding production to keep up with strong demand for new products in our four brands. We’re also steadily growing in emerging markets, keeping our costs under control, generating positive cash flow and maintaining a strong balance sheet. These are all important steps as we lay the foundation for a successful GM.”

GM executives had been signaling that the company’s business was improving through the first quarter and some had suggested GM would show a profit.

GM’s $31.5 billion in revenue during the first quarter was up compared to a year ago when revenues were just $22.4 billion. Those revenues had dropped nearly 50% as the company looked toward bankruptcy.

As a different company a year ago, GM lost $6 billion in the first quarter, news that was announced just weeks ahead of its June 1 bankruptcy filing. Those results followed losses of $30.9 billion in 2008 and $38.7 billion in 2007 — the two worst years ever for GM.

A year’s time is making a lot of difference for GM.

GM’s sales were up 16.8% during the first three months of 2010, according to Autodata Corp.

New vehicles, such as the Buick LaCrosse and Chevrolet Equinox, are helping the company as is an improving economy that's boosting sales industry wide.

That’s translating into improving business for GM’s North America operations, which reported operating results of $1.2 billion for the first quarter up from a loss of $3.4 billion during the final three months of last year.

http://www.freep.com/article/20100517/B ... -1Q-profit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CitadelGrad]

Thank you, President Obama.

[AZGrizFan]

Wonderful. Now reconvert all that government stock to a LOAN like it started out as and lets see how they performed.

[Rob Iola]

Wonderful. Now reconvert all that government stock to a LOAN like it started out as and lets see how they performed.

And nice that they were able to divest themselves of GMAC...

[AZGrizFan]

Wonderful. Now reconvert all that government stock to a LOAN like it started out as and lets see how they performed.

And nice that they were able to divest themselves of GMAC...

No shit.

[mainejeff]

You CONKS can't stand positive news.......

[CitadelGrad]

If I pissed on your shoes and told you it was raining, you'd probably thank Obama for ending the drought.

[D1B]

Yes, thank you president Obama!

Conks would have fucked it up.

[Rob Iola]

Yes, thank you president Obama!

Conks would have fucked it up.

Absolutely right D - if by "fucked it up" you mean let GM go bankrupt...

[Grizalltheway]

Yes, thank you president Obama!

Conks would have fucked it up.

Absolutely right D - if by "fucked it up" you mean let GM go bankrupt...

What country do you live in, Iola?

[mainejeff]

If I pissed on your shoes and told you it was raining, you'd probably thank Obama for ending the drought.

Nope.......I really don't care for Obama. But unlike you CONKS........I don't blame him for everything bad in this country or the world either.

[AZGrizFan]

Absolutely right D - if by "fucked it up" you mean let GM go bankrupt...

What country do you live in, Iola?

GM needed to go bankrupt, and be GONE.

[Grizalltheway]

What country do you live in, Iola?

GM needed to go bankrupt, and be GONE.

That doesn't mean the Repubs would have let it happen...

[AZGrizFan]

GM needed to go bankrupt, and be GONE.

That doesn't mean the Repubs would have let it happen...

We'll never know, but you're most likely right on this issue. Bush caved in before he left office, and Obama took the bailout ball and ran with it.

[danefan]

That doesn't mean the Repubs would have let it happen...

We'll never know, but you're most likely right on this issue. Bush caved in before he left office, and Obama took the bailout ball and ran with it.

AZ - will it matter to you if the IPO generates billions of dollars of profit on the government interest?

Some people are in the camp that it doesn't matter because its not something the government should be involved in no matter how much money there is to be made. Are you in that camp?

[BDKJMU]

We'll never know, but you're most likely right on this issue. Bush caved in before he left office, and Obama took the bailout ball and ran with it.

AZ - will it matter to you if the IPO generates billions of dollars of profit on the government interest?

Some people are in the camp that it doesn't matter because its not something the government should be involved in no matter how much money there is to be made. Are you in that camp?

GM blatantly lied in that commericial last month where they claimed to have paid back the taxpayers in full, has only paid back less than 7 billion of the 50 billion they borrowed from the taxpayers. I don't believe the taxpayers will ever be paid back in full from the taxpayer $ that was poured into GM.
http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2010/ ... dog-group/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/general- ... d=10554206" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Bronco]

Treasury takes $2.1 billion loss on Chrysler loan
AP ^ | 5/17/10 | MARTIN CRUTSINGER (AP)



WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department said Monday it will lose $2.1 billion on a loan made to Chrysler in early 2009.

Taxpayer losses from bailing out Chrysler and General Motors are expected to rise as high as $34 billion, congressional auditors say.

Treasury said Monday that it had received a $1.9 billion repayment from Chrysler Holding, which emerged from bankruptcy last year, and that was all it expected to recover.

The original loan was made to Chrysler LLC on Jan. 2, 2009, by the Bush administration. At the time, the government was scrambling to provide emergency support to both Chrysler and GM and their auto financing arms.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated in March that the government's $85 billion bailout of automakers would cost taxpayers $34 billion.


(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...

[Rob Iola]

Absolutely right D - if by "fucked it up" you mean let GM go bankrupt...

What country do you live in, Iola?

I live in Obama's America - why do you ask?

[Grizalltheway]

What country do you live in, Iola?

I live in Obama's America - why do you ask?

Because, like I said, there's no way the conks would have let GM fail.

[danefan]

AZ - will it matter to you if the IPO generates billions of dollars of profit on the government interest?

Some people are in the camp that it doesn't matter because its not something the government should be involved in no matter how much money there is to be made. Are you in that camp?

GM blatantly lied in that commericial last month where they claimed to have paid back the taxpayers in full, has only paid back less than 7 billion of the 50 billion they borrowed from the taxpayers. I don't believe the taxpayers will ever be paid back in full from the taxpayer $ that was poured into GM.
http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2010/ ... dog-group/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/general- ... d=10554206" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm pretty sure the US Gov't has zero outstanding loans with GM. The US gov't has a huge equity stake in GM. The IPO could easily generate a profit for the Government. Especially if GM continues to show earnings like it did today. Its definitely not guaranteed, but its way too early to say the government won't make a profit on its investment.

I understand if you're against the investment of a government into a private/publicly traded enterprise. I don't think the US gov't should have bailed out GM. But recharacterizing what is clearly an equity position as a debt isn't an accurate portrayal of this situation.

And the links you provide above support my position.

Still, the last line of the April 21 press release did state, "After this repayment, the remaining Treasury stake in GM consists of $2.1 billion in preferred stock and 60.8 percent of the common equity."

In the world of corporate finance, the GM loan is paid off in full. Now, the commercial is a different story.

[GannonFan]

GM blatantly lied in that commericial last month where they claimed to have paid back the taxpayers in full, has only paid back less than 7 billion of the 50 billion they borrowed from the taxpayers. I don't believe the taxpayers will ever be paid back in full from the taxpayer $ that was poured into GM.
http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2010/ ... dog-group/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/general- ... d=10554206" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm pretty sure the US Gov't has zero outstanding loans with GM. The US gov't has a huge equity stake in GM. The IPO could easily generate a profit for the Government. Especially if GM continues to show earnings like it did today. Its definitely not guaranteed, but its way too early to say the government won't make a profit on its investment.

I understand if you're against the investment of a government into a private/publicly traded enterprise. I don't think the US gov't should have bailed out GM. But recharacterizing what is clearly an equity position as a debt isn't an accurate portrayal of this situation.

And the links you provide above support my position.

Still, the last line of the April 21 press release did state, "After this repayment, the remaining Treasury stake in GM consists of $2.1 billion in preferred stock and 60.8 percent of the common equity."

In the world of corporate finance, the GM loan is paid off in full. Now, the commercial is a different story.

Come on, I certainly understand the idea that we could, somewhere in the future, make money off of the GM deal, but let's be real - we, the taxpayers, gave GM money - they haven't given it back. Calling it equity versus debt doesn't change that situation. Semantics don't change that.

[danefan]

I'm pretty sure the US Gov't has zero outstanding loans with GM. The US gov't has a huge equity stake in GM. The IPO could easily generate a profit for the Government. Especially if GM continues to show earnings like it did today. Its definitely not guaranteed, but its way too early to say the government won't make a profit on its investment.

I understand if you're against the investment of a government into a private/publicly traded enterprise. I don't think the US gov't should have bailed out GM. But recharacterizing what is clearly an equity position as a debt isn't an accurate portrayal of this situation.

And the links you provide above support my position.



In the world of corporate finance, the GM loan is paid off in full. Now, the commercial is a different story.

Come on, I certainly understand the idea that we could, somewhere in the future, make money off of the GM deal, but let's be real - we, the taxpayers, gave GM money - they haven't given it back. Calling it equity versus debt doesn't change that situation. Semantics don't change that.

The US Gov't loaned GM money. The money was paid back with a combination of cash and stock (both common and preferred). That's now an investment. Its not semantics. Its a totally different relationship with the US government and GM then is the case in a debtor/creditor relationship.

The IPO could happen as soon as 6 months from now. A large chunck of that investment could be cashed out after that IPO. Like I said its not a guarantee but its also way too early to flat out say that the investment in GM will be fruitless.