Posted on 10/28/2013 11:27:01 AM PDT by jazusamo
The past month has brought much confusion and concern for General Motors' shareholders regarding the most important and profitable segment of sales for the company. As the company prepares to report earnings for the third quarter this week, media reports are still unclear on just what is going on with GM's new truck lineup; specifically pertaining to the reasons behind the disappointing sales figures that were reported for the month of September when Ford's truck offerings left them in the dust.
While GM's Obama-appointed management spun the story ( claiming supply could not keep up with demand ) to some in the media who are gullible enough to print the misinformation without question, some GM dealers were more honest with their assessment.
GM's management has lots of experience when it comes to trying to deceptively explain away poor sales of much-hyped vehicles. The Chevy Volt has never lived up to expectations and the same "supply can't keep up with demand" excuse was used, even as GM temporarily halted production at plants making the vehicle due to the embarrassing sales. As those in GM management present their case as virtuously as politicians seeking reelection, some at GM's dealerships (who have a bit more credibility) give a clearer picture as reported by Automotive News.
The article quotes one Florida Chevy dealership general manager as saying that the 2014 Chevy Silverado (GM's bread and butter pickup) is selling "very poorly." The president of another dealership in Texas says his supply of Silverados was up to 170 days compared to his previous average of 110 days. Yet another principal of four Texas dealerships said his truck supply was up to 120 days compared to the typical 90 day supply. Assuming that the management and owners of Chevy dealerships are not part of a right-wing conspiracy to hurt GM because of its ties to President Obama, it would appear that we can put to rest the notion that the lackluster sales for GM's new truck lineup is a result of supply not being able to keep up with demand.
GM dealers are pointing to the simple fact that competitors have better deals on their truck offerings and consumers can get better bang for their buck elsewhere. Of course, the dealers would like to see increased incentives on the vehicles to spur sales; a remedy that hurts profits and shareholders at GM. The ingenious response from GM? Trick consumers by raising prices of the trucks and then increasing incentives ! As PT Barnum (or perhaps a White House spokesman) might say, "There's a sucker born every minute!"
Another Automotive News report blows holes in the "supply can't keep up with demand" excuse. The piece states, "GM started October with an 82-day supply based on September's sales pace, up 18 from Sept. 1. Stocks of the Chevrolet Silverado pickup rose to a 115-day supply from 98, and the GMC Sierra pickup rose to 98 days from 87." GM no longer likes to discuss truck inventory, which it has had a past history of stuffing to manipulate earnings, but analysts should ask some tough questions during GM's earnings' conference call about where truck inventory levels are. The tricky strategy of raising truck prices at the same time that incentives are raised should also be questioned. Judging from GM's past explanations, even if such questions are allowed to be asked, I doubt that the answers will be credible.
I just don't get why GM has to continue to play its politically dishonest approach to all challenges it faces. It seems that the governmental intrusion into the company has left an indelible template that sets forth a strategy by GM of smoke and mirrors along with media manipulation to portray an image of an efficiently managed entity operating with an eye on the bottom line when in reality it is most concerned with public perception. The true bottom line is, if GM does not focus on building high quality vehicles at the best value in a very competitive market instead of being concerned with perception, all of the excuses in the world will not prevent a second trip for the company through bankruptcy court.
Mark Modica is an NLPC Associate Fellow.
Related:
Survey: Auto Bailout is a Drag on GM Truck Sales
Didn’t Ford do the same thing with the small size Ranger?
Same here.
Yeah, maybe your manufacturer should have taken bankruptcy instead of letting zero screw the investors AND the taxpayers! And, maybe zero shouldn't have tried turning GM into VW like Hitler did. And, maybe GM should have paid back ALL of the money they got from the taxpayers instead of going on TV and lying about how they paid it all back.
Payback's a biatch!!
Eggsaklee!!!!!
Simple:
The price of a popular Silverado model — a four-wheel-drive crew cab with a 5.3-liter engine in the All Star package — is $43,005 after factoring in incentives, GM says, while the comparable 2013 F-150 model, a 4wd XLT Super Crew with an EcoBoost engine, is $40,385 after incentives.
Bought a used 1987 chevy S-10 back in 1992, ran so well I bought a gmc sierra to replace it with. Was about to buy another gm product until jug ears got involved with em. Wife had a pontiac and has a 2003 gmc suv now. I probably wont ever buy another gm product because they got in bed with zero. Too many other choices out there.
Amen to that.
If I was going to buy a full size truck, I would definitely buy a Tundra.
Had a ‘99 Ford Ranger with over 170,000 miles. Still ran pretty good. Got rid of it and looking for a 2002- 2005 Ford Escape. Bit of a rough ride, but does what I need and a very fair price. I’m not big on car payments even if I can afford it.
Sorry, gubmit motors...you built excrement, and then joined purveyers of excrement when you accepted gubmit money.
FUGM.
Take your trucks, cars, and stocks and shove ‘em up your smelly collective Obamaholes.
GM could offer them at half price and I would not consider even stopping by to look.
4 years ago, got rid of the GMC and bought an f-150
GM can go under.
Gee GM is using the Obamacare excuse. It’s a good product that everyone wants, you just can’t access it.
Yep, the worst business decision GM ever made was ending its S-10 line. I have a 2002 S-10 pick-up truck with over 200,000 miles on its, and will hold on to it until its falls apart from rust sometime in the distant future.
Yeah, but get rid of the UAW and you don’t go bankrupt.
I come from a family that always bought GM.
Aside from the fact that the “family brand”, Pontiac, no longer exists, our 00 Sierra was and is the last GM vehicle I’ll own. I’ll keep it running for as long as I can or until the typical GM rust consumes it.
I recently bought a used Ranger. An 87. Emission testing excempt. Nice little truck, far lest rust than the Sierra, still pretty simple to work on despite the EFI and 4x4. Manual everything. I expect it will outlast the Sierra even though it has 13 more years on it.
I bought my first new vehicle in 1976 (I was 23). It was an F150 4x4 with the V8 and a four speed tranny, had the dealer put on white spoke wheels with big meats and the price was around $6500. Price have risen slightly over the years.
Because it's a political entity and politics are inherently dishonest?
I’m an electrician in the oil patch. We use 3/4 or 1 ton trucks, usually diesel. Sadly, Toyota doesn’t make a 1 ton truck. Ford diesel can’t compare to the duramax. Cummings is good, but the trucks ride like rocks and have a weak transmission. So if you want a better ride with a good engine, you wind up with Gmc or Chevy.
The small truck line is dead, killed by CAFE standards.
The last holdout the Ford Ranger is no longer for sale either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.