Home / Markets / Industries / Auto Makers in Crisis
Friday, November 07, 2008
GM's Loss Worse Than Expected
Kathryn Elizabeth Tuggle
FOXBusiness
After almost an hour’s delay in releasing its third quarter earnings report, General Motors (GM) posted worse-than-expected results on Friday at 11:15 a.m. Eastern time, raising questions about whether it can survive the coming year without a cash infusion.
The Detroit, Mich.-based auto maker’s losses of $4.2 billion in operating costs and $6.9 billion in cash are due to the economic crisis and a sharp drop-off in sales.
The cash-strapped company announced it will restructure to try and free up $20 billion for expenses through 2009. The restructuring will involve dissolving jobs and cutting $2.5 billion in capital spending.
GM lost $2.5 billion, or $4.45 per share, in the quarter, compared with a net loss of $42.5 billion or $75.12 a share, in the third quarter last year. Revenue fell to $37.9 billion from $43.7 billion a year prior. The company has finished the third quarter with $16 billion, and plans to cut costs by another $5 billion through 2009.
Rick Wagoner, CEO of GM addressed concerns that the company will run out of money before the end of the year in an interview with Fox Business.
“The third quarter was difficult. I think there are a couple of factors which resulted in a faster burn rate than the first two quarters,” Wagoner said. He added that the fourth quarter is expected to be more like the first two quarters in terms of burn rate.
Despite massive restructuring efforts, the auto maker has been forced to look to the government for a federal bailout, and joins with Detroit neighbor Chrysler and Ford in conjunction with the United Auto Workers Union to ask for a rescue package. Chrysler and GM are both faced with liquidity problems moving forward, as well as a 25-year low in profits and sales. GM said it was no longer pursuing an acquisition, which was widely believed to be with Chrysler.
“We’re going to have to work very hard, do all the self-help we can, and we’re going to find a way to get through this,” said Wagoner. “Hopefully the government will be willing to provide the support we need along with all the work we’re doing.”
Additionally, GMAC, the financing business owned by both GM and Chrysler, reported a net loss of $2.5 billion for the third quarter, down by $900 million from last year. This was attributed to low used-vehicle prices and poor consumer credit. GMAC also had its counterparty credit rating downgraded by Standard and Poor's from ‘B-‘ to ‘CCC’ and its residential capital counterparty rating downgraded from ‘CCC+’ to ‘CCC-.’
FOX Translator
No data currently available.
No data currently available.
Some mutual funds want you to pay for the privilege of them (or your investment adviser) taking your money to invest. It's called a load, and it works like a cover charge to get into a nightclub. Luckily, there are such things as no-load funds. As the name implies, shares of these funds are sold without a fee paid to a broker or investment advisor.
The entire amount you invest in no-load funds goes to work for your returns. On the other hand, with load funds, right off the bat you're charged commission (not to mention other fees incurred over the life of the investment). Let's say, for example, you invest $25,000 into a load fund that charges a 5% commission. This costs you $1,250 off the top, bringing your actual investment down to only $23,750.
The often-cited horse race analogy argues against investing in load funds. Here's the logic behind it: Would you place a bet on a horse that had to start a race 200 yards behind the others? Well, maybe you would if you got a tip from a sketchy, trench coat-clad man in a dark alley. However, under most circumstances, it's not smart to put your money on that handicapped horse.
But some argue that at times that man in the trench coat (aka your broker) knows more about the horses than you do, and has a better shot at picking a winner. Also, sometimes these fees are unavoidable because some funds are available only through investment advisers.
Cost-benefit analysis can help determine when a load fund is worth it (in other words, when it will score you a load) and when it is better to "do it yourself" and avoid the fees. Load-fund fees range depending on share class and can cover a variety of costs, such as paper work and fund management.
