Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Reasons to sit out GM's initial stock offering

Mon Nov 15, 2010 12:05 AM EST
us-news, business, us, red, gm, ipo, flags, red-flags
Sharon Silke Carty, AP Business Writers
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 3 photos
<p>FILE - In this Nov. 7, 2010 file photo, Samantha Lozon of Grosse Pointe, Mich., stands next to the 2011 Chevrolet Volt, a rechargeable electric car, during the South Florida International Auto Show in Miami Beach, Fla. There's no guarantee GM can afford to continue to invest in electric vehicles or other green technologies.  And much like the Toyota with its Prius, GM probably won't make money on the Volt until the third or fourth generation. (AP Photo/Lynne Sladky, File)</p>

FILE - In this Nov. 7, 2010 file photo, Samantha Lozon of Grosse Pointe, Mich., stands next to the 2011 Chevrolet Volt, a rechargeable electric car, during the South Florida International Auto Show in Miami Beach, Fla. There's no guarantee GM can afford to continue to invest in electric vehicles or other green technologies. And much like the Toyota with its Prius, GM probably won't make money on the Volt until the third or fourth generation. (AP Photo/Lynne Sladky, File)

Advertise | AdChoices

DETROIT — General Motors executives are playing up three bright spots in the company's future as they try to persuade investors to buy GM stock: a better lineup of cars and trucks, potential for global growth and a new cost structure that enables the company to make money even when the economy dips.

But the world's most charming used car salesman couldn't cover up major concerns hanging over GM's initial public offering on Thursday.

GM emerged from a government-organized bankruptcy just 16 months ago, a process the company says has made it stronger and healthier. The reorganization erased debt and lowered labor costs. It also removed $27 billion from the wallets of bondholders and left stockholders with nothing. Taxpayers spent more than $50 billion to save GM from ruin between December 2008 and July 2009 and are not expected to get all their money back.

Critics say GM is speeding into its IPO before it has proved that its structural problems are fixed. Other IPOs often leave the investing public a little slap-happy: Each newly minted stock certificate could turn into the next Walmart or Apple, but it's rare that one does.

Here are some reasons investors may want to sit this one out:

EVEN WITH AN IPO, GM IS STILL GOVERNMENT MOTORS

You might find the nickname clever, but inside the company, it's an embarrassment and the driving force behind the decision to hold the IPO as early as possible. GM wants the government sell off its shares.

"We want the government out. Period," Chairman Ed Whitacre said this summer. But the IPO process will be more like a drawn-out divorce between GM and taxpayers. This stock offering will only reduce the government's stake in GM from 61 percent to 43 percent. It will take more stock offerings, staggered over the next few years, before the U.S. government is out of the car business.

For shareholders, that means GM may not always put investors first. Political priorities may trump their demands. Some worry GM will spend too much time and use too many resources working on small cars or electric cars and not enough on profitable vehicle lines like trucks and SUVs.

The stock offering "is entirely cosmetic," says Logan Robinson, a law professor at the University of Detroit Mercy who has worked as legal counsel at Chrysler and automotive supplier Delphi. "The government is absolutely going to call the shots, even if they are below 50 percent."

Before handing over bailout cash, a task force convened by President Barack Obama wrote in contract provisions forcing GM to use the money in ways the government approved. Some of those provisions, including executive compensation and U.S. production levels, are locked in until 2014.

Even if the Treasury were to sell every share it owns in GM, its influence and power would remain. The top two executives, Whitacre and CEO Dan Akerson, were picked by the government. Three other directors, David Bonderman, Robert Krebs and Patricia Russo, were also chosen by the government to sit on the 13-member board.

"Where do these board members' and executives' priorities lie — is it with the administration, or is it with the shareholders?" asks Linda Killian, founder of Renaissance Capital, which analyzes and invests in IPOs. That question is "sitting there like an 800-pound gorilla, holding stock."

YEARS OF FUZZY MATH STILL NOT FIXED

GM admits it doesn't have great control over its finances. It said so in a long list of potential risk factors spelled out in its stock registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

That should be troubling to investors, who need reliable financial disclosures to figure out how much a stock is worth.

In its recent IPO filing, GM said it's been working on improving its accounting procedures, but as of June 30, "our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective at a reasonable assurance level." In other words, it's not there yet. Although many risk factors listed in an IPO filing are standard, only companies that have a track record of financial mismanagement tend to confess that more problems could pop up. GM's most recent admission is not the first time the company has said its finances are sloppy. GM has a history of financial irregularities: The company admitted major mistakes five times from 2005 to 2009 and had to restate earnings for a variety of reasons, like misstating pension accounting and booking questionable transactions with its supplier, Delphi.

Since 2006, GM has promised three times that it would fix its accounting irregularities. The impact of those restatements was minimal, but eventually the company slid into bankruptcy because of a host of other problems. Once they began diving into the company's books, members of the government's autos task force said they were shocked how little GM knew about its own finances.

GM has a new chief financial officer, former Microsoft executive Chris Liddell, a hard-charging executive who's known for making changes. But GM may still have a problem.

Questions have arisen over the company's decision to book $30.2 billion in goodwill as an asset, even though goodwill isn't something the company can sell, use to invest in new products or help improve its business any other way. It also counts as a bigger asset on the books than all of GM's property ($18.1 billion) and its cash ($26.8 billion).

Goodwill is usually created when an acquiring company pays more than the book value for the assets of a company it's buying. It only becomes an issue for investors if the acquisition turns out to be a dud and the acquirer has to take what's known as an impairment charge to write down the value of the goodwill account. That reduces reported earnings.

In GM's case, the opposite might happen — it could be forced to reduce its goodwill and take an earnings charge if its financial picture improves. How is that possible? The accounting specifics are arcane, but the short answer is that accounting rules allowed it to pump up the value of potential tax-loss credits it could use to offset future taxable income precisely because its earnings outlook going forward is so cloudy. A similar approach was used in valuing employee benefits it's on the hook to pay.

The upshot is that if GM is as successful as its executives hope it will be, goodwill-related charges to earnings might be a recurring and unpleasant surprise for shareholders. "It's another reason why I would not personally think it's time to invest in GM," says law professor Robinson.

MEET GM'S NEW STEPBROTHER, THE UAW

The United Auto Workers union has gone from a drag on the company to a part owner. How the new relationship will play out is still unknown.

The UAW owns 17.5 percent of GM right now, and has the option to buy 2.5 percent more before the end of 2015. It could sell stock during the IPO or hunker down and remain a major player.

But arguments over wages will likely start cropping up, and will become even tougher to deal with as GM talks about how financially secure the company is now.

The biggest grumbling among autoworkers is the new two-tier wage system, under which some workers can earn $29 an hour and new hires get only half that. It's a system that makes shareholders and executives happy because it brings labor costs in line with non-unionized workers at Toyota and Honda plants in the South. But it could spell trouble for GM if the new wage system creates unrest with workers.

"It's hard to run a business where some people are making double what others are making for the identical job," Robinson says.

Besides the wage issue, there is mounting pressure on the UAW from its members and from other unions to demand that benefits lost during the auto crisis be restored.

"The three major US (auto) companies are making profits again . we demand that they do right by the workers who have done right by them," Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, said in a speech at the UAW's major convention last summer. "Because just as there has been shared sacrifice in periods of pain, there must be shared prosperity in periods of gain."

ELECTRIC VEHICLES AREN'T A SAVIOR

After a decade of selling Hummers, GM must change its image and become greener. It's heading in the right direction: The Chevrolet Volt, which can go 40 miles on battery power alone, will debut in showrooms next month.

But there's no guarantee GM can afford to continue to invest in electric vehicles or other green technologies. And much like the Toyota with its Prius, GM probably won't make money on the Volt until the third or fourth generation. It was a gamble Toyota was willing to make because the company believed hybrids would catch on eventually, and having the first fully functional hybrid would give Toyota a green image with consumers.

GM is betting the Volt will provide a similar kind of green halo over its cars.

The company is waiting for approval on an application for $14.4 billion from the Energy Department to help renovate older plants to make fuel-efficient vehicles. That money may never come, GM says. Its first application for the funds was made before bankruptcy, and was denied because the Energy Department said GM couldn't prove it was a viable company.

"If our future operations do not provide us with the liquidity we anticipate, we may be forced to reduce, delay, or cancel our planned investments in new technology," the company says.

___

In the days leading up to GM's New York Stock Exchange debut, investment bankers say they have more orders than stock. Joe Phillippi, president of AutoTrends Consulting, says he expects GM's IPO will price even higher than current estimates — up from a range of $26 to $29 a share to as high as $32 a share.

But even if the stock pops on the first day of trading, the red flags aren't going away.

Phillippi expects company will continue improving as time goes on.

"It's going to be a slow and steady march back upward," Phillippi says.

© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Sharon Silke Carty's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: Detroit
  • Public Discussion (6)
Dont_make_me_come_in_there

So many cars and so many car makers. I'll keep my hard earned money until GM can show they can make a world class automobile in the United States. They have been able to make decent cars in Europe. But the ones offered in the US are pure crap. Poor styling, poorly engineered, poorly put together, and poor gasoline mileage. And they seem to be able to price them so their customers will stretch to buy them. Yeah, no more bending over for crap repackaged. When they actually make a world class car, I will be happy to buy one. In the mean time, the germans over engineer their cars, which translates into cars that perform well, stop great, look good, keep you alive in a crash, and get good gas mileage. Come GM, you can do it in Europe, does America not deserve a decent product?

    Reply#1 - Mon Nov 15, 2010 3:27 PM EST
    Old Dave

    How many hundreds of billions of tax dollars has GM and it's employees paid to the government (federal, state & local) over the last 100 years? Plenty!

    GM was one of the powerhouse companies that not only created most of the wealth in the USA in the 20th century, but helped to define the century, too. GM and it's employees & retirees more than deserve to be helped by the federal gov't., a lot more so than Goldman-Sachs & AIG.

    As an American, I would never dream of buying Jap-crap or German junk. Who do you think taught them how to make cars after WWII? How many billions in U.S. tax dollars were spent building & rebuilding the factories in Japan and Germany after WWII that went on to make Toyotas & Volkswagens that were dumped here in the 60's & 70's, undermining GM, Ford and Chrysler? If anything, U.S. government policies over the last 50 years are responsible for the demise of the U.S. auto industry. The 50 billion inflated dollar "bailout" is chump change compared to what is really owed to GM by the government.

      Reply#2 - Tue Nov 16, 2010 4:10 PM EST
      Nicey-1026620

      This stock offering is almost an insult to those who just lost money about 18 months ago.

      GMs stock price was around $30 or so at peak and went to zero. All the investors lost their money. And now it's IPO is being priced at $33 dollars a share for 478 million shares.

      The Chevy Volt is a nice thing, but The Ford Fusion Hybrid is really the better deal. More stylish, good mileage, costs way less, and simply looks better. But at least these companies are stepping up their game.

        Reply#3 - Wed Nov 17, 2010 5:01 PM EST
        Nicey-1026620

        As an American, I would never dream of buying Jap-crap or German junk. Who do you think taught them how to make cars after WWII?

        Both those countries have always been innovators.

        After all, the US stole jet engines (Me262), stealth technology, missle technology (V1, V2) all from Germany in the aftermath of the war.

        After WWII, Toyota developed its own manufacture technique (push/pull) which none of the American companies used.

        BMW converted itself from building airplanes to building Cars. Being as they built pretty darn good airplane engines, it's not a stretch to build a less complex car engine.

        How many billions in U.S. tax dollars were spent building & rebuilding the factories in Japan and Germany after WWII that went on to make Toyotas & Volkswagens that were dumped here in the 60's & 70's, undermining GM, Ford and Chrysler?

        Being as Japan was largely untouched except for the 2 atomic bombs, most of their factories needed no rebuilding.

        Germany benefited some from the Marshall Plan, but that was largely for all of Europe and was thus shared. Germany had factories so large many of them were left in tact because the war was ending fast and destroying them wasn't all that beneficial. In fact, France urged for the destruction of Germanies manufacturing base after WWII, which didn't happen.

        Japan became an electronics super power in its own right, Germany has the largest export economy in the world, in its own right.

          Reply#4 - Wed Nov 17, 2010 5:10 PM EST
          Old Dave

          Both those countries have always been innovators.

          No, I think copycats is a more accurate description, especially Japan.

          After all, the US stole jet engines (Me262), stealth technology, missle technology (V1, V2) all from Germany in the aftermath of the war.

          It was Frank Whittle, a British pilot, who designed the first turbo jet engine in 1930. The first Whittle engine successfully flew in April, 1937. The U.S. stole nothing from Germany.

          Full radar evolved as a pulsed system, and the first elementary such apparatus was demonstrated by the American Robert M. Page in December 1934, working at the Naval Research Laboratory. The germans used a primitive stealth paint on U-boats in response to American radar. Also, in 1926, Robert Goddard launched the world's first liquid-fueled rocket in Auburn, Massachusetts. Once again, the U.S. stole nothing.

          Being as Japan was largely untouched except for the 2 atomic bombs, most of their factories needed no rebuilding.

          From March 1945 through the end of the war, many Japanese cities were subjected to area bombing with incendiaries. Tokyo, Osaka, and many other cities were burned out by firestorms that reached over 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. The bombings may have killed as many as 500,000 people. Largely untouched, my azz!

          Germany benefited some from the Marshall Plan, but that was largely for all of Europe and was thus shared.

          I'll say they benefited! Between 1947-51, the U.S. spent 25 Billion dollars to help rebuild Western Europe. That's the equivalent of about 500 billion dollars today. What if that money had been spent on rebuilding the USA?

          Your only true statement is below:

          After WWII, Toyota developed its own manufacture technique (push/pull) which none of the American companies used.

            #4.1 - Fri Nov 19, 2010 9:11 PM EST
            Nicey-1026620

            It was Frank Whittle, a British pilot, who designed the first turbo jet engine in 1930. The first Whittle engine successfully flew in April, 1937. The U.S. stole nothing from Germany.

            Oh, so it was the first combat fighter jet right?

            Oh wait, no it wasn't. The Me262 was.

            Hecht, Heinrich. The World's First Turbojet Fighter - Messerschmitt Me 262. Atglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer Publishing, 1990

            And claiming they didn't use anything off the design is ridiculous. The Me262 was superior to any jet fighter in the world at the end of the war. They'd be stupid to not take some of the spoils of war.

            I suppose America employed this program just as a sort of convenience tool...

            http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1608

            I mean, since they had nothing to learn they obviously just formed it for sport.

            Next you'll be claiming the Russians stole ICBM technology from us and we secretly put MIR into orbit for them.

            Or things like this:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Big

            How about the start of the Manhattan Project? Which began with German scientists.

            Or Submarine technology, which the Germans reliance on it led to far superior sub technologies.

            Also, in 1926, Robert Goddard launched the world's first liquid-fueled rocket in Auburn, Massachusetts.

            Oh, so they used those in the war?

            And it's not like they made an entire operation to capture German Rocket scientists or anything like that...

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

            Because guess what, they had actual field experience with launching missles in combat conditions. Not just some theoretical idea of how it would work.

            The germans used a primitive stealth paint on U-boats in response to American radar.

            Not what I was talking about.

            I am talking about modern stealth bombers.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229

            Widely acknowledged as the first true stealth bomber.

            From March 1945 through the end of the war, many Japanese cities were subjected to area bombing with incendiaries. Tokyo, Osaka, and many other cities were burned out by firestorms that reached over 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. The bombings may have killed as many as 500,000 people. Largely untouched, my azz!

            There was no invasion of the mainland. The end. And you mean 4 months? Ok. Even Germany who was more heavily bombed that Japan, and invaded in land combat and city street fighting, still retained large manufacturing districts.

            See many other wars with strategic and tactical bombing campaigns.

            Were they helped to rebuild? No more so than many other countries in the same areas. That is, the US helped all of Europe. Not just Germany. Germanies own dedication has made them the #1 exporter in the world today. We can't keep claiming stuff from 60 years ago. In what way are we at all supporting Germany today?

            I'll say they benefited! Between 1947-51, the U.S. spent 25 Billion dollars to help rebuild Western Europe. That's the equivalent of about 500 billion dollars today.

            I suggest checking your inflation statistics.

            1 dollar 1945 would be 12.13 in 2010 dollars. http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm

            Compare to the relative size of the economies at the time, and that it wasn't exclusive to helping Germany. And that is really not all that much stimulus.

            Europe by comparison today spent trillions (multiple trillions) of dollars of stimulus in the 2008 downturn. And you're talking about 300 billion spread over Britian, France, Germany, Italy, etc, etc, etc.

            What if that money had been spent on rebuilding the USA?

            From what exactly would we have been rebuilding?

              #4.2 - Tue Nov 23, 2010 1:19 PM EST
              Reply
              Leave a Comment:
              You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
              You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
              (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
              Newsvine Privacy Statement
              As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
              FUN STUFF:
              • Leaderboard |
              • E-Mail Alerts |
              • Top of the Vine |
              • Newsvine Live |
              • Newsvine Archives |
              • The Greenhouse
              COMPANY STUFF:
              • Code of Honor |
              • Company Info |
              • Contact Us |
              • Jobs |
              • User Agreement |
              • Privacy Policy |
              • About our ads
              LEGAL STUFF:
              • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
              • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
              • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com