Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Graham and Doddsville -- Value Investing In The New Era -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: porcupine --''''> who wrote (446)	6/29/1998 4:56:00 PM
From: porcupine --''''>	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1722

> >Today, a GM-made car that costs the same number of hours of work on > >the part of the average U.S. worker can often operate for 100,000 > >miles before its first trip to the shop. In addition to > >reliability... > Except oil and oil filter changes, timing belts, etc. Point noted. > >As should be obvious, there is a "little boy or girl" in every auto > >worker, from the factory floor to the executive suite, who wants to > >make "cool cars". GM, for instance, is the company that put > >hi-powered V-8 engines in every Cadillac, created America's only > >high-speed sports car (the Corvette), perfected the automatic > >transmission (Rolls Royce once bought its transmissions from > >Oldsmobile), produced the 409 V-8 engine, the Pontiac GTO, and so > >on. > Where's something to compete with the Miata? (which I bought a few > months ago.) There isn't. The issue is why. My point being: Though every auto maker wants to make innovative cars, GM couldn't afford to design innovative cars in the early 1990's, and remains severely hampered by a cost structure that no other car maker operating in the U.S. is constrained by. > Also, you're completely leaving out the successful Saturn. The Saturn is not widely viewed as a design or engineering innovation. Rather, it is seen as a marketing innovation: haggle-free car buying.

To: porcupine --''''> who wrote (446)	6/29/1998 11:49:00 PM
From: porcupine --''''>	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1722

Rightsizing GM: > A reader writes: > While I agree that GM fits the definition of a value stock it will only pay > off if they can get their cost structure down to the level of Ford or > Chrysler. Correct. > Should GM ever do this (and at times I despair) the growth in > earnings would be out of this world even if Market share would dip. Correct. > However the only way that I see that GM can get its cost structure down is > to have a massive downsizing which may be untenable from a PR standpoint. > Somehow GM would have to commit some of the earnings growth to the > unemployed etc along the lines of the John L Lewis Coal mine deals. The post World War II period suggests that the forces of supply and demand are inexorable, and ultimately, irresistible. The "untenable from a PR standpoint" is already taking place in the former Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and, at long last, even Japan. Thus, it is difficult to conceive that GM's management and the UAW are in a position to resist these forces the way they could in the days of "Engine Charlie" Wilson and Walter Reuther. > I disagree about the quality issue. I rent a lot of low mileage cars when I > travel. The interior finish of GM cars is definitely below the Chrysler or > Ford cars. There always seems to be a piece of plastic hanging below the > GM dashboards and the trunk lining seems to be falling apart. May be > dealer supplied cars don't have these problems but I know which cars I > won't look at when it comes to replace my Toyota. Duly noted. From what I read in the press, the quality improvements at GM have been uneven, but the "average" of GM's lineup approaches that of Ford. For example, Chevrolet's continue to display the kind of unacceptable attention to quality that you have described. Whereas, Saturn has received grudging praise in the Japanese press, an unusual achievement for a U.S.- made auto. Also, the Buick Regal and the Oldsmobile Cutlass, in particular, have reached very high levels of quality, largely because they eschewed innovation -- to the eventual detriment of market share. Regarding the "hidden costs" (to the buyer) of innovation, I have read that Fords come off the line with great quality, but that often their whizbang innovations develop expensive-to-repair problems further down the road. For example, the windshield wiper motors cost $200 to replace. Considering that that is what a VCR costs, and that VCR's have to have high quality motors, more exotic problems are likely to have even more outsized repair costs. Reynolds Russell