Busted! By their Leftist buddies at CBS to boot!
They can use the 5.5 billion as a down payment on the 11 billion they stole from the tax payers during the obungo administration
And Trump should use that 5.5 billion to build the wall
problem solved
There are rumors that Obama and his close allies lobbied GM CEO Mary Barra personally over the closures. If this is true, then the Democrats may have just lost the support of the UAW—ouch!
Maximizing the value of the stock is what a company is supposed to do. Even if that means offshoring to China to reduce costs.
It is government trade policy that needs to adjust to keep the jobs here, not individual companies.
Tariff incoming vehicles and their parts. And make the tariffs permanent. The market and companies need to know the tariffs aren’t going away the next time Trump has dinner with the Chinese.
Only then will they plan to build in the US.
Maximizing the value of the stock is what a company is supposed to do. Even if that means offshoring to China to reduce costs.
It is government trade policy that needs to adjust to keep the jobs here, not individual companies.
Tariff incoming vehicles and their parts. And make the tariffs permanent. The market and companies need to know the tariffs aren’t going away the next time Trump has dinner with the Chinese.
Only then will they plan to build in the US.
All they have to do is make cars that people want to buy...................
This ignores the fact that GM pays a quarterly dividend of $0.38 per share.
Buying back that stock means less money going out in dividends.
Anybody have a figure on the actual production loss $$ of the Volt?
so the $11B of taxpaper money was used to buy back stock to enrich the corporate heavies?
Well. On the one hand, the company is supposed to operate in the interest of the shareholders. On the other hand, they aren’t supposed to steal from the government to benefit the shareholders... and that’s what a buy-back, over and above normal dividend policy, looks like when the government of we, the people, holds the bag for the 11.2 billion dollar cost of the bailout.
Or, is there some doctrine of “let bygones be bygones” that I’m missing here?
Economic illiteracy on full-display at See-B.S. News! One (stock buy-back) has nothing to do with the other (eliminating production of vehicles not meeting profit targets).
Suppose GM is making 100 different vehicle models. Then suppose 95 of them make acceptable profits, while 5 of them don’t. GM then acts to stop production of the 5 sub-par models. Isn’t this what corporations are supposed to do?
Only after you have some profit, and positive cash-flow, can you consider buying back stock. Doing so reduces the amount aggregate amount of dividend payments being made, and further improves profit and cash-flow. It also makes the aggregate profits spread-out over fewer shares, increasing the earnings-per-share held by its investors. Afterall, increasing shareholder value is their fiduciary duty.
So, all of that said, could they have accomplished all (or nearly all) of the same without shuttering American factories and laying off American workers? That’s the big question.
It shouldn’t have taken Trump beating them over the head with this message for them to make them realize they should have taken a long, hard look at deferring to America-first. The fact that they didn’t already anticipate a reaction and have a counter-response at the ready, tells me they DIDN’T give it a serious look. And, with the US subsidizing them still, it’s management malpractice for them not to have done so, and not to have had preliminary discussions with the administration about their plans.
Automotive production levels are directly tied to UAW contracts.
The UAW proposes and the auto maker decides if they can make enough cars to justify the contract.
Not SELL enough cars...just make them.