Yes, the auto industry needs more money...
- Thread starter jsharp
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: wapacz
Pretty sure gm no longer holds controlling shares in gmac. Aka they sold a big chunk of it off a while ago.
THANK YOU! Everybody missed the first line in the article:
"GMAC, the former lending arm of General Motors Co."
GMAC and GM are no longer one and the same. Everybody is just in such a rush to be critical that they make themselves look foolish. Just look at the title of this post...
Yes, GM sold controlling interest in GMAC. That hardly means GMAC is no longer a player in the US auto industry.
It seems some people are so quick to try to defend the US auto industry they can't be bothered to read the original post, or the article -
GMAC is a crucial player in the U.S. auto industry, providing wholesale financing to many General Motors and Chrysler dealerships to pay for the vehicles on their lots.
Hard to understand how that got missed...
I'll stand by my "the auto industry needs more $$" observation.
Originally Posted By: wapacz
Pretty sure gm no longer holds controlling shares in gmac. Aka they sold a big chunk of it off a while ago.
THANK YOU! Everybody missed the first line in the article:
"GMAC, the former lending arm of General Motors Co."
GMAC and GM are no longer one and the same. Everybody is just in such a rush to be critical that they make themselves look foolish. Just look at the title of this post...
Yes, GM sold controlling interest in GMAC. That hardly means GMAC is no longer a player in the US auto industry.
It seems some people are so quick to try to defend the US auto industry they can't be bothered to read the original post, or the article -
GMAC is a crucial player in the U.S. auto industry, providing wholesale financing to many General Motors and Chrysler dealerships to pay for the vehicles on their lots.
Hard to understand how that got missed...
I'll stand by my "the auto industry needs more $$" observation.
Originally Posted By: jsharp
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: wapacz
Pretty sure gm no longer holds controlling shares in gmac. Aka they sold a big chunk of it off a while ago.
THANK YOU! Everybody missed the first line in the article:
"GMAC, the former lending arm of General Motors Co."
GMAC and GM are no longer one and the same. Everybody is just in such a rush to be critical that they make themselves look foolish. Just look at the title of this post...
Yes, GM sold controlling interest in GMAC. That hardly means GMAC is no longer a player in the US auto industry.
It seems some people are so quick to try to defend the US auto industry they can't be bothered to read the original post, or the article -
GMAC is a crucial player in the U.S. auto industry, providing wholesale financing to many General Motors and Chrysler dealerships to pay for the vehicles on their lots.
Hard to understand how that got missed...
I'll stand by my "the auto industry needs more $$" observation.
I didn't miss that point. While I can remotely see your point, I still think you're stretching things. You just wanted to stir up a GM thread and used GMAC as that tool not knowing that they were not part of GM anylonger.
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: wapacz
Pretty sure gm no longer holds controlling shares in gmac. Aka they sold a big chunk of it off a while ago.
THANK YOU! Everybody missed the first line in the article:
"GMAC, the former lending arm of General Motors Co."
GMAC and GM are no longer one and the same. Everybody is just in such a rush to be critical that they make themselves look foolish. Just look at the title of this post...
Yes, GM sold controlling interest in GMAC. That hardly means GMAC is no longer a player in the US auto industry.
It seems some people are so quick to try to defend the US auto industry they can't be bothered to read the original post, or the article -
GMAC is a crucial player in the U.S. auto industry, providing wholesale financing to many General Motors and Chrysler dealerships to pay for the vehicles on their lots.
Hard to understand how that got missed...
I'll stand by my "the auto industry needs more $$" observation.
I didn't miss that point. While I can remotely see your point, I still think you're stretching things. You just wanted to stir up a GM thread and used GMAC as that tool not knowing that they were not part of GM anylonger.
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: jsharp
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: wapacz
Pretty sure gm no longer holds controlling shares in gmac. Aka they sold a big chunk of it off a while ago.
THANK YOU! Everybody missed the first line in the article:
"GMAC, the former lending arm of General Motors Co."
GMAC and GM are no longer one and the same. Everybody is just in such a rush to be critical that they make themselves look foolish. Just look at the title of this post...
Yes, GM sold controlling interest in GMAC. That hardly means GMAC is no longer a player in the US auto industry.
It seems some people are so quick to try to defend the US auto industry they can't be bothered to read the original post, or the article -
GMAC is a crucial player in the U.S. auto industry, providing wholesale financing to many General Motors and Chrysler dealerships to pay for the vehicles on their lots.
Hard to understand how that got missed...
I'll stand by my "the auto industry needs more $$" observation.
I didn't miss that point. While I can remotely see your point, I still think you're stretching things. You just wanted to stir up a GM thread and used GMAC as that tool not knowing that they were not part of GM anylonger.
I knew quite well what I was posting and do know the history of GM/GMAC/DiTech etc. As the title states, and as I've pointed out now on 4 different occasions, this thread is about the "auto industry" of which GMAC is very clearly a part. It's not about GM.
I suspect you're not in PR at GM. I'd say that's a smart choice.
Originally Posted By: jsharp
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: wapacz
Pretty sure gm no longer holds controlling shares in gmac. Aka they sold a big chunk of it off a while ago.
THANK YOU! Everybody missed the first line in the article:
"GMAC, the former lending arm of General Motors Co."
GMAC and GM are no longer one and the same. Everybody is just in such a rush to be critical that they make themselves look foolish. Just look at the title of this post...
Yes, GM sold controlling interest in GMAC. That hardly means GMAC is no longer a player in the US auto industry.
It seems some people are so quick to try to defend the US auto industry they can't be bothered to read the original post, or the article -
GMAC is a crucial player in the U.S. auto industry, providing wholesale financing to many General Motors and Chrysler dealerships to pay for the vehicles on their lots.
Hard to understand how that got missed...
I'll stand by my "the auto industry needs more $$" observation.
I didn't miss that point. While I can remotely see your point, I still think you're stretching things. You just wanted to stir up a GM thread and used GMAC as that tool not knowing that they were not part of GM anylonger.
I knew quite well what I was posting and do know the history of GM/GMAC/DiTech etc. As the title states, and as I've pointed out now on 4 different occasions, this thread is about the "auto industry" of which GMAC is very clearly a part. It's not about GM.
I suspect you're not in PR at GM. I'd say that's a smart choice.
Last edited:
No GMAC also did home loans, my grandfather used to be a loan officer lender for them. I know for a fact that they (aside ditech) did home loans.
GMAC did a lot of financial dealings. IIRC they were doing loans for home appliances at one point. That changes thier current round of begging not at all.
http://markettalk.newswires-americas.com/?p=5785
GMAC has come crawling back to the government yet again, asking for a third lifeline of taxpayer money. The troubled consumer lender, which has already received $12.5B from the government since December, has asked for another $2.8B to $5.6B of fresh capital in the form of preferred stock. WSJ has the details:
The willingness by Treasury officials to deepen taxpayer exposure to GMAC reflects the troubled company’s importance to the revival of the auto industry. Founded in 1919, GMAC has $181 billion in assets and is a major financier for 15 million borrowers and thousands of General Motors and Chrysler car dealerships in the U.S.
The new capital would help firm up GMAC’s balance sheet and solidify its auto-loan business. GMAC provides the vast majority of wholesale financing for GM dealerships across the country, meaning scores of local distributors would be unable to bring new vehicles onto their lots if GMAC were to collapse.
GMAC begging for more funds is a stark reminder of the bailout rage that swept through the economy in late 2008 and earlier this year. Bloggers, to say the least, are outraged.
"The reason for more dough to GMAC is so GM and Chrysler can continue to finance auto purchases, not as a result of greater than expected losses on its existing portfolio,” Yves Smith writes at naked capitalism. “So this is cash for clunkers under another brand name.”
Note the bold text that opines that this is, as stated in my original post, about the auto industry. Let me repeat auto industry since some of us seem to be having difficulty with that phrase...
http://markettalk.newswires-americas.com/?p=5785
GMAC has come crawling back to the government yet again, asking for a third lifeline of taxpayer money. The troubled consumer lender, which has already received $12.5B from the government since December, has asked for another $2.8B to $5.6B of fresh capital in the form of preferred stock. WSJ has the details:
The willingness by Treasury officials to deepen taxpayer exposure to GMAC reflects the troubled company’s importance to the revival of the auto industry. Founded in 1919, GMAC has $181 billion in assets and is a major financier for 15 million borrowers and thousands of General Motors and Chrysler car dealerships in the U.S.
The new capital would help firm up GMAC’s balance sheet and solidify its auto-loan business. GMAC provides the vast majority of wholesale financing for GM dealerships across the country, meaning scores of local distributors would be unable to bring new vehicles onto their lots if GMAC were to collapse.
GMAC begging for more funds is a stark reminder of the bailout rage that swept through the economy in late 2008 and earlier this year. Bloggers, to say the least, are outraged.
"The reason for more dough to GMAC is so GM and Chrysler can continue to finance auto purchases, not as a result of greater than expected losses on its existing portfolio,” Yves Smith writes at naked capitalism. “So this is cash for clunkers under another brand name.”
Note the bold text that opines that this is, as stated in my original post, about the auto industry. Let me repeat auto industry since some of us seem to be having difficulty with that phrase...
Originally Posted By: Kestas
Originally Posted By: HM12460
imho (not worth even 2 cents) gm and chrysler didn't deserve a bail out and neither did the big banks.
I agree with you. The market should have taken its course and worked things out naturally.
The auto workers here in the Motor City felt that the auto industry was more deserving of a bailout than the financial industry. After all, what makes a country great... strong banks or a strong manufacturing base? It was shameful that the financial industry got their bailout on a silver platter, yet the auto industry had to beg and grovel for the same thing.
The auto industry didn't line the pockets like the financial industry.
Originally Posted By: HM12460
imho (not worth even 2 cents) gm and chrysler didn't deserve a bail out and neither did the big banks.
I agree with you. The market should have taken its course and worked things out naturally.
The auto workers here in the Motor City felt that the auto industry was more deserving of a bailout than the financial industry. After all, what makes a country great... strong banks or a strong manufacturing base? It was shameful that the financial industry got their bailout on a silver platter, yet the auto industry had to beg and grovel for the same thing.
The auto industry didn't line the pockets like the financial industry.
- Status
Similar threads
