Holy Wealth Destruction

daayou · 03-11-2009, 06:22 PM

Beef, this is pretty much for you.

WOW - did you see what happened to the richest of the richest this year?

Bill Gates is back at number 1. However we went from 60 billion to 40 billion.
Buffet went from 62 billion to 37 billion, Carlos Slim is down to 35 billion.

WOW. All of those guys were in the 60+ billion range last year. I am trying to find out though if that was as of Dec 31, 2008. If it was, WOW, those three could easily have another 10b cut.

Ixie · 03-11-2009, 09:29 PM

It's messed. I'm sure Buffet will be alright. I'm reading the Berkshire Hathaway 2008 Annual Report in my spare time right now. Buffet is a hero.

I think I've seen some of the biggest hits to be totally honest. Dad is heavy in the auto industry after all. His company was the 3rd or 4th fastest growing one in Canada 2 years ago. It's literally worth pennies right now. A very large handful of the dealerships they hold are Chrysler which really isn't helping the situation, but it's still rather interesting how blistering the declines have been. These are guys who were building 3 dealerships this year, two of which were going to be the largest in all of western Canada, based on income of previous years. Virtually overnight the trend was completely reversed.

Ixie · 03-11-2009, 09:33 PM

From the first page of the report btw... remember this is just 2008

"Our decrease in net worth during 2008 was $11.5 billion, which reduced the per-share book value of both our Class A and Class B stock by 9.6%. Over the past 44 years (that is, since present management took over) book value has grown from $19 to $70,530, a rate of 20.3% compounded annually."

Phegus · 03-11-2009, 10:15 PM

I realized something today.

I am putting money into a market retirement fund. I have been doing it for 3 years now. All the money that has been put in for those 3 years is at a fraction of what it was...sucks, but I am young, it will rebound. I am still putting the same amount of money into my retirement fund now, as I was then....now I am getting more shares per dollar, when the market rebounds, that is gonna be sexy

Bonzo · 03-11-2009, 10:28 PM

when (if) the market rebounds the dollar won't be worth as much, so I wouldn't get too excited. That is inevitable, so however many shares you think you have would be irrelevant when the dollar is toilet paper.

daayou · 03-12-2009, 01:00 AM

Ixie

Yes, I have thought of you and your dad. Car dealerships are shit right now.

I seriously laugh when morons say, "The big3 are idiots, they don't know what they are doing, the foreigns are so much better." I tell them, it is not a CAR issue, it is a CREDIT issue. With the credit issue putting everyone into fear mode, the industry is hurting. At the beginning of 2008, it was expected that the US car sales rate would be 17-18 million units. If I remember correctly . . . it was around 11 million. All the projections are for car sales to be in the 9-11 million range this year. NO manufacturing business that has long lead times can absorb a near 50% reduction in demand over night.

Toyota has posted losses, Honda has posted losses.

Unfortunately, I suspect you will see Chrysler collapse. They have to be absorbed by another just for the brand. But as far as all the dealers . . . no need for them.

I laugh when our fucking moronic government states that the reason people are not buying cars is because the big 3 are not making what people want to buy. They are stating people want to buy hybrids, electric, etc. Yeah, like fuck they do. People want great quality, cheap price and power. If you can make it green, then cool.

Honestly, I think the Big 3 did it correct with green. Sure Toyota sold a ton of Prius. But they also lost money on each one! The technology is close to being there. It just is too expensive at this time.

Now back to the topic at hand.

My wife said, "Gates and Buffet will be fine, there is no real loss." I told her, "WRONG!" There is a MAJOR loss. These guys use that wealth to make more. Both have stated that they are going to donate ~90% of it all when they die. Think about that! Last year 108 billion was going to charities. This year . . ~70 billion. That is a BIG hit to a charity.

I think Buffet has probably lost another 15-25% of his net worth this year so far. Gates probably 10-15%. Look at their stocks: MSFT at the beginning of the year was 19.5 today it is 17.5, Berkshire A was ~100k, now 84k.

But what hurts Buffet is what he owns!

He owns a ton of Wells Fargo, a ton of AmEx, some reinsurance companies, USBancorp.

Bonzo · 03-12-2009, 01:04 AM

People think the big 3 are idiots because for a long time they did make inferior cars in the 90s and drove people off to buy foreign (which they did, in droves). GM and Chrysler, with the exception of Ford, do not have enough cash to sustain themselves because of their shitty sales BEFORE the credit crunch, which has simply pushed them over the edge.

Yes, Toyota had big losses and so did Ford, the difference is that they will survive this without sucking government tit.

Bonzo · 03-12-2009, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Honestly, I think the Big 3 did it correct with green. Sure Toyota sold a ton of Prius. But they also lost money on each one! The technology is close to being there. It just is too expensive at this time.

How can you say this?

So what if Toyota took some losses on selling Prius'; they took market share by the ass load on hybrids. Part of introducing a new technology into society is easing your consumer base into it and making them feel safe, so that people buy more from you in the future due to reputation; all while you hone your technology. That is when they will make their profit.

What's GM's equivalent? The Chevy Volt, which is not only uncharted territory being that it runs completely on electricity for the first 50 miles or so, but would cost upwards of $10,000 more than a Prius and the best part: it won't even come till later in 2010. GM can't even survive that long on it's own, which means more Gov't cheese, naturally. The Volt is what GM is banking on, which is why they are giving Obama one to test drive so the government can decide whether or not they are worth saving.

I've said it before, but I'm still REALLY skeptical as to how many Americans are going to dump upwards of $30k on a car which has never been done before from a Company that should have filed Chapter 11 two years before the time it actually comes out.

daayou · 03-12-2009, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dyermaker

How can you say this?

So what if Toyota took some losses on selling Prius'; they took market share by the ass load on hybrids. Part of introducing a new technology into society is easing your consumer base into it and making them feel safe, so that people buy more from you in the future due to reputation; all while you hone your technology. That is when they will make their profit.

The technology is not theirs to hone. That is the issue! Battery technology is not a technology that the car makers own. It is 3rd parties. Getting market share at a loss for what purpose?

You do realize that Toyota was NOT first don't you? It was GM with the ev-1.

Quote:

What's GM's equivalent? The Chevy Volt, which is not only uncharted territory being that it runs completely on electricity for the first 50 miles or so, but would cost upwards of $10,000 more than a Prius and the best part: it won't even come till later in 2010. GM can't even survive that long on it's own, which means more Gov't cheese, naturally. The Volt is what GM is banking on, which is why they are giving Obama one to test drive so the government can decide whether or not they are worth saving.

GM did test some of this technology. It was called the EV-1. However, if you say Toyota can come out with new technology, why can't GM? I don't get that.

Quote:

I've said it before, but I'm still REALLY skeptical as to how many Americans are going to dump upwards of $30k on a car which has never been done before from a Company that should have filed Chapter 11 two years before the time it actually comes out.

Telsa?

Before you bitch about GM and going bankrupt, understand their costs.

Look at the south where Shelby and his cronies have given massive tax incentives for foreign car manufacturers to come in. So free factories, free taxes. And oh by the way . . . there is NO pension payments to retirees.

So . . . how can you compete when your cost for components are the same, but your cost for labor is 2 to 3x as much?

You do realize that the largest private insurer in the nation is GM don't you?

Bonzo · 03-12-2009, 02:08 PM

Tesla??? Are you serious? Tesla is a spec compared to GM and they make specialized limited edition cars for millionaires, not for the average schmuck. GM is going to need the average guy to buy Volts, Tesla doesn't and usually their cars have waiting lists and need to be bought in advance.

Quote:

The technology is not theirs to hone. That is the issue! Battery technology is not a technology that the car makers own. It is 3rd parties. Getting market share at a loss for what purpose?

You do realize that Toyota was NOT first don't you? It was GM with the ev-1.

The technology is not theirs to hone, but the implementation is. Execution is everything in cars and it only comes with practice. You get market share so that people know your product is reliable. No matter how old the tech may be, the average American does not have much exposure to hybrids anyway.

The EV1 was not for sale anywhere and was experimental, correct? Didn't they can the project? You can buy a Prius but you could and can never buy an EV1.

I never denied that GM has higher labor costs; they do by far. My point was that I am skeptical as to how many people are going to pay that much for a Volt. So what if they made the EV1 what, 10 years ago? Only .0005% of Americans have ever driven one, so who cares? Look how many own a Prius in comparison to that and the good reviews, cheaper price and the longer exposure to Toyota's implementation.

Your logic in regards to technology is flawed. Just because every brand possesses hybrid technology does not put them on equal footing. Every car manufacturer has combustion engine technology too, does that make them equal? Execution is everything.

daayou · 03-12-2009, 04:14 PM

My point dyer was to show that the cost to go to this technology is prohibitive.

Making a car that people will not buy because the cost is too prohibitive is bad business.

It really is a matter of economics.

Come out with a green car - a car that gets me 35+ mpg, that has space to store more than a condom, something that I feel safe in, something that doesn't cost too much more than what I can currently buy and I will consider it!

So because GM saw that the cost to produce these cars would make them cost prohibitive they are bad? I don't get that. I call that good business.

Here how about this . . .

You can buy a multi cpu quad core xeon system today. You can get it with 32 gigs of ram.

Is it going to do what YOU want it to? You know that is going to have a 12k price tag on it.

If you have the need for it, you will buy it.

If I told you that computer will consume 1/3 the energy than your 1k computer, do you care?

That is the issue with green cars.

Everyone figures out ROI in their head.

Bonzo · 03-12-2009, 04:28 PM

Here's some food for thought:

"According to GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner, his worst decision of his tenure at GM was "axing the EV1 electric-car program and not putting the right resources into hybrids. It didn’t affect profitability, but it did affect image."[17] CEO Wagoner repeated this assertion during an NPR interview with Michelle Norris after the December 2008 Senate hearings on the U.S. Auto Industry bailout request.[18]

According to the March 13, 2007, issue of Newsweek, "GM R&D chief Larry Burns . . . now wishes GM hadn't killed the plug-in hybrid EV1 prototype his engineers had on the road a decade ago: 'If we could turn back the hands of time,' says Burns, 'we could have had the Chevy Volt 10 years earlier.'"[19]"

As to your comment: You don't need a hybrid for those kind of specs. My car gets 36mpg regularly and I have a huge trunk and it cost well under 20k. Quite a few other cars get similar results too.

I really wonder how "prohibitive" the cost of the technology was when even after pursuing other routes GM ended up in this position anyway.

Ixie · 03-13-2009, 02:52 AM

Better food for thought. The green movement is the Holocaust or Rwanda of today. It's not something we can do with guns blazing and congress and the media shoving stupid notions upon us. It will take time, much longer than all the hype will last.

Toyota isn't alive because it has the Prius. I think that much is obvious. It's about the image. Plus years of the corroding effect of strong unions and a weakened image after the cars of the 80's and 90's on the part of the US automakers. Current cars aren't bad though.

Anyway, here's the rest of your quote from the ol' Wiki Dyer.

According to GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner, his worst decision of his tenure at GM was "axing the EV1 electric-car program and not putting the right resources into hybrids. It didn’t affect profitability, BUT IT DID AFFECT IMAGE."[17] CEO Wagoner repeated this assertion during an NPR interview with Michelle Norris after the December 2008 Senate hearings on the U.S. Auto Industry bailout request.

It's a PR stunt. Nothing else. One day a large enough market share will exist for the green cars but it's not right now, unless your retired in Florida or something. I also don't believe the EV1 didn't bite into profitability. Batteries were really fucking expensive back than. They still are, but the tech has advanced leaps and bounds since than. The Prius was not possible when the EV1 was around, plain and simple, not even the hybrid one was possible with the old tech.

I'll stray off topic here for a sec but it's simply to prove a point about the green movement. Cars are taking the fire, I suppose maybe factories too, but don't you think the entire (North) American lifestyle is just wastefully excessive? Should people be torching houses like mine and Daayou's for being gigantic and wasteful of energy to heat/cool/power/whatever, the same way people have burnt Hummers to the ground for the same thing?

It's a fad that people like to pretend to be in on. If the price was right and the vehicle was good enough for modern North American life, than EVs would be all over the place just for the gas savings. That's capitalism baby. Right now they are nifty showpieces. The Volt wouldn't be a smash hit even if it was sold by Toyota outside of a recession.

Bonzo · 03-13-2009, 09:46 AM

Oh, absolutely it is all due in part to the American lifestyle, but GM has said itself that if it invested in hybrids earlier, it would have had the Volt several years ago. The prospect of the Volt being a success is all they are living on right now, so obviously they made a very big mistake.

So because the EV1 wasn't profitable then, you halt research on it all together and scrap all of them? Have they ever heard of investing in one's future? If I invest in something now, I don't expect profit from it right now, so why should they be any different?

No, Toyota isn't alive just due to the Prius, but they are now the biggest hybrid competitor because of it and that WILL matter in the future when people say "Oh, should I buy a Prius that's been around for years or get this new Volt that costs 10 grand more from the company that may not be around long enough to honor the warranty?" Toyota has had a large suite of cars with very high MPG, not even hybrids, for many years. This, coupled with the Prius, cheaper labor costs and all of the dissatisfied GM customers that Toyota has taken from them is why they are alive and GM isn't.

Pilar · 03-13-2009, 10:58 AM

u can't say that a company who has been visibly working the longest on a technology doesn't have the marketing upper hand when the said technology becomes the new fashion statement. toyota is now in version 3.0 (or is it 4.0) of their hybrids.

i'm also hoping that Honda figures out a way to reduce the manufacturing cost of FCX Clarity - i think that project looks promising.

btw, have u guys seen the Karma Fisker. u can clearly tell the lines r borrowed from current models of BMW roadsters and Astin Martins - which makes sense since, Henrik Fisker had a hand in their design as well. here r some pics: http://autoshow.autos.msn.com/autosh...mentid=6010234.

Bigshooter · 03-13-2009, 12:31 PM

You guys should remember that foriegn automakers were bailed out by their respective governments. This includes Toytota,Mazda,Honda etc.

daayou · 03-13-2009, 01:07 PM

Dyer

This is a great bookmark for seeing what is reality in the car sales market.

http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/pag...autosales.html

They update it each month.

Please, tell me about the Prius again . . . It is not even one of the top 20 cars sold.

So is a business bad for making what people want to buy or bad for not making enough of what others want consumers to buy?

The problem with people, and that includes me, is that it is very hard to not understand why things can not change immediately. I mean, we see in the movies that things can happen in 2 hours, why can't the real world be that way?

Innovation occurs. It just does not occur as fast as people want it to be in an economical way.

Personally, I think this crew here is jaded. We all have some heavy background in the 'puter world. We realize that next year we can buy something for half the price with twice the speed and twice the storage, why doesn't the rest of the world work this way? Getting that through my thick skull took a LONG time.

I brought Telsa up for a reason. If they sell a car for 80k, what do you think there cost is to make it? It ain't cheap. What is the biggest cost component? Batteries.

I got invited to a group to listen to people pitch their business. It was a 60 second pitch followed up by 10 minutes of questions. One company was doing battery replacements for Prius. I am trying to remember exactly what their deal was (ironically, I do have the speech on tape.) They had on their team the guy who did the batteries for Telsa. They were looking at selling replacement batteries for the Prius. They had longer charges, less weight, more efficient, lasted longer. They were selling them for 15k. The margins were 10%. So their cost on the replacement packs were 13,500! I sat there and figured it out, it was a SEVEN year ROI. I asked them why someone would spend 15k for replacement batteries on a 25k car that would have a seven year ROI. It makes NO sense to me.

See this is the next big issue that people do not realize is coming. Batteries are NO WHERE near as efficient as either a diesel or gas engine. Batteries die over time and need complete replacement. They are not cheap! Replacing an engine is significantly cheaper than replacing a battery pack.

You do realize that Toyota Prius' are the ultimate in a disposable car don't you?

When that battery pack dies in 10 years, what do you do? Are you going to spend 15k replacing the batteries? A 25k car at purchase, 10 years old, putting 15k into it again? Huh?

Go out and look around. How many cars do you see that are still running fine that are 10-20 years old?

Now before you go off on me . . . Yes, the cost of the batteries will drop. How far and how fast is the question. If you think that they will decrease in cost to become more affordable, then why shouldn't GM or any other company just wait until it becomes more cost effective and them implement?

Ixie · 03-13-2009, 02:03 PM

I think we all forgot why we got into this debate. Daayou said the gov't and populace was retarded for telling the US automakers that the only way they were going to survive was by building more hybrids and/or EV's. Again, I think we can all agree that this WOULDN'T save the US autos and that it would probably just speed up their collapse the way things are RIGHT NOW. The only way that could really work was if the gov't simply bought them or paid them to use their resources to further the tech. Kinda like when they used car factories to help build shit for the war machine back in WW2.

Right now they are saying whatever they have to to get those loans

And again nobody is arguing that Toyota has better vehicles. Their whole line-up is decently fuel efficient and alot have hybrid most, while still being functional. Imagine the shit storm if Chrysler made the Sequoia though... that thing is BEYOND huge. I also don't disagree that Toyota will be in a way better position when the tech finally comes full circle with EVs and Hybrids. Ultimately the argument here (at least as far as I see it) was that making cheap, quality, and reliable cars is a far better model than "going green" for two companies that are already on life support. They can't afford to completely re-invent themselves or sell cars where 1/3 of the price is a flippin battery to a market that is JUST emerging.

On top of that, and maybe this isn't entirely true outside of places I have lived, people LIKE THEIR BIG SUVs. Half of the vehicles on the roads here are SUVs or trucks built by the Big3. Another big chunk is "affordable luxury" vehicles (the [new] 300, for example) that until recently, the foreigns didn't really have. It's their market and they were smart pursuing it. Sure they should have tried a bit harder to get a foothold on smaller, more fuel efficient cars, but that's the realm of the foreign companies. Yet another unfortunate issue of timing. When fuel went through the roof it drew fire on pretty much their entire line-up.

The problems for GM and Chrysler right now pretty much have nothing to do with not having a massive hybrid branch. Consider Chrysler. They got fucked by Daimler. They got fucked by Cerberus. They got fucked by the unions. They got fucked when oil went nuts. Again, they haven't had time to recover from the tarnished image of the 90's or the effects of the introduction of cheap foreign cars (which were utter pieces of shit when they first got here). Toyota has taken hits as big as those taken by the big three during some months since this whole collapse. Like Big's mentioned, they have gotten help from the Japanese and simply had more cash on tap to weather it out.

The future is definitely in EVs and Hybrids and whatever else we can dream up and it most certainly is a good idea to get in the game as early as possible. The innovation would never happen if there wasn't incentive to gain early market share. But the point ultimately is that it won't save the ailing auto's like Obama wants you to think it will. One day you will wake up and there will be lots of these cars on the road, but by the time that happens you will have forget entirely about the current green craze.

daayou · 03-13-2009, 02:31 PM

Ixie

I actually think you are going to see a bigger push in diesel before you see hybrids. Diesel technology has gotten so much better. It is cleaner, less knocking and the mileage is much better. Look at what VW has been doing with their cars. The infrastructure to get across the country with a vehicle is already there. And what is funny . . . the Jetta's are getting close to the same mileage as a Prius!

Bonzo · 03-13-2009, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daayou

Dyer

Please, tell me about the Prius again . . . It is not even one of the top 20 cars sold.

So is a business bad for making what people want to buy or bad for not making enough of what others want consumers to buy?

.............

When that battery pack dies in 10 years, what do you do? Are you going to spend 15k replacing the batteries? A 25k car at purchase, 10 years old, putting 15k into it again? Huh?

Go out and look around. How many cars do you see that are still running fine that are 10-20 years old?

Now before you go off on me . . . Yes, the cost of the batteries will drop. How far and how fast is the question. If you think that they will decrease in cost to become more affordable, then why shouldn't GM or any other company just wait until it becomes more cost effective and them implement?

Yes, you're right, the cost will drop. So let's say you do replace that battery in 10 years and by then it costs you 2,000 or even less. Think of the money you'd have saved on gas by that time.

So what if the Prius isn't there right now, they don't need it to be because they have secured a large portion of the hybrid market in the future when these batteries do come down in price.

Sales charts...don't mean much to me anymore. They are slashing prices on vehicles, especially trucks, tremendously. It doesn't mean they made a profit on what they sold and it doesn't mean that they are what people even want. People still want trucks though, because they will always be needed to do work, but I really doubt they are making much profit on them. If I could get a 30k truck for 15k, I would buy it too. Even still, Toyota's sales have gone down by the 30-40% range, while GM is down in the 50-60% range. That is a pretty big difference considering just how massive GM is, all while Toyota has 4 models in the top 5 best sellers.

One thing I didn't see anyone mention was GM's whole spiel about "Employee Pricing." This hurt them TREMENDOUSLY and furthers my point. Just because they sold cars does not mean they made good money off of them, so sales figures are hardly accurate. I read this book and it illustrated this clearly.

Amazon.com: The End of Detroit: How the Big Three...

Quote:

Ultimately the argument here (at least as far as I see it) was that making cheap, quality, and reliable cars is a far better model than "going green" for two companies that are already on life support. They can't afford to completely re-invent themselves or sell cars where 1/3 of the price is a flippin battery to a market that is JUST emerging.

Right, and for many years GM got the 'cheap' part right but left out the quality and reliability in that equation.

GM's predicament is complex and a big part of it was due to labor costs and the shitty market - HOWEVER, an even bigger part of their problems are self-inflicted wounds due to poor business practice over the span of many years.

You can all argue till you are blue in the face about it, but had they had some foresight, the ONE saving grace that they are banking on for survival would have been out by now. Instead, they built more Buicks and Saturns.

Beefisgood · 03-13-2009, 08:48 PM

Yes, that is pretty insane Dave.

Since you mentioned charitable contributions, do you think that the proposed decrease in the amount one can deduct from their taxes (35% to 28% for tax payers making over $250,000 a year) would be of benefit to Obama's new plan?

EDIT:

Here is a video of the Cramer VS Stewart http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/TV/0...ml#cnnSTCVideo

Don't know if you have been reading or watching the two go back and forth lol.

daayou · 03-13-2009, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dyermaker

So what if Toyota took some losses on selling Prius'; they took market share by the ass load on hybrids. Part of introducing a new technology into society is easing your consumer base into it and making them feel safe, so that people buy more from you in the future due to reputation; all while you hone your technology. That is when they will make their profit.

I had to go back to this.

There are a few phrases that I have learned and it makes sense here.

First to market . . . First to slaughter.

You only have one chance to make a good impression.

Ironically, I doubt I will ever buy a new car again in my life. Well, unless I hit the $100m mark in net worth. I just don't see the need to spend more than I need to. I can generally find a car with 1-3k miles on it for 20-30% less than street price.

Beef - You know, I have not looked into what BO is doing. Until it becomes law, I try not to concern myself with it. Well, at least with tax talk

I do know I need to talk to my accountant about something I am doing. For my business, I am donating stuff to lots of people. They have a value, all are going to non-profits. I am trying to determine if there is a cap on donation values within an LLC.

dave

Bret · 03-13-2009, 10:14 PM

screw all the vertical integration, they need to move to some horizontal integration models.

daayou · 03-13-2009, 11:59 PM

Beef

Out of boredom I did watch the Stewart v. Cramer.

To me?

It reeked of both of them wanting ratings.

I am trying to think of the gain for either one of them other than ratings.

All Stewart had to say was, "You do realize that your show should be on Comedy Central, not on CNBC." That would have ended it all there. Cramer acts like a comedian, his show has little to no value. It has been a touting show for the longest time.

CNBC is owned by GE. GE earned over 50% of their profits from their finance division. GE makes weapons for war. Do you think those are ever reported? When I realized that they were not reporters but bouncing heads supporting their advertisers, they lost all value.

The only value is staring at Maria Cabruso Carrerra's tits.

I do enjoy Fast Money. I like Uncle Fester - he generally tells it as it is. I like Karen - she is one smart woman! The Najarian twins are nice to listen to for some options discussions. Ratigan does a decent job of pissing people off with good questions that he never gets interviews anymore.

I do have respect for Deutsch and his show The Big Idea - but it has not been on in a long time

It was the ONLY show I tivo'd.

But Stewart didn't rip him at all. There were still gloves on both of them and Cramer just sat there smug and took it.

Pilar · 03-14-2009, 06:04 PM

Stewart was friggin' excellent. partly that interview makes me sad cuz it accentuates the depravity of the so called real journalists who's job it is to take these guys to task.

Bonzo · 03-14-2009, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daayou

I had to go back to this.

There are a few phrases that I have learned and it makes sense here.

First to market . . . First to slaughter.

You only have one chance to make a good impression.

dave

I had to come back to this too, because I don't know how you can say that because they have been selling like hotcakes.

Look at this article from a little over a year back.

http://www.autoobserver.com/2007/12/...re-brands.html

and this first post, which proves pretty much what I've been saying all along, and this is from 2004.

http://priuschat.com/forums/prius-hy...ng-profit.html

They were the first to market and they will be the ones doing the slaughtering/

daayou · 03-15-2009, 12:45 AM

Dyer

So what?

Ford F150s then should be there own brand. They are outselling everything known to mankind.

I don't know what you are getting at.

Toyota will have NO patent on batteries. The batteries do not come from them. So how can they have a lead?

The major rule of business - barriers to entry. What are the barriers for GM/Ford/Chrysler/Bmw/Mercedes to just go to the source that Toyota has and buy the batteries? Now they will have some more experience in drivetrains, and integration, but honestly, all they need to do is to buy a Prius and dissect it! The computer industry does not have a monopoly on reverse engineering

Now Toyota will have an advantage in manufacturing though as there is no ramp up compared to another company, but that is about the only barrier I can think of.

Pilar · 04-02-2009, 03:22 PM

China Vies to Be World’s Leader in Electric Cars

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/bu...c.html?_r=1&em

daayou · 04-02-2009, 04:09 PM

Pilar

It would not surprise me to see them do it.

When I was in Shanghai I saw something that just shocked the shit out of me. They were building another tunnel to get from one side to the other (iirc the hungpu river?) The tunnel was supposed to be done in (iirc) 3 years. They finished it UNDER budget and almost 18 months early. It was incredible! They never stopped, it was just get it done, no was not a choice.

When was the last time any major road project was done under budget and early in the US? I do not think it has been done in my lifetime!

So for them to come out with electric cars and be dominant, I can see it happening.

It still goes back to a big problem with all electric cars. They are the biggest disposable landfill issue to come up to greet everyone. Look at the Prius. The batteries are supposed to last around 7 years. Then the car will require new ones at a cost of over 7k. That is killing resell value and destroying most economic advantages that the Prius has over gas/diesel.

Mod · 04-02-2009, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daayou

Pilar

It would not surprise me to see them do it.

When I was in Shanghai I saw something that just shocked the shit out of me. They were building another tunnel to get from one side to the other (iirc the hungpu river?) The tunnel was supposed to be done in (iirc) 3 years. They finished it UNDER budget and almost 18 months early. It was incredible! They never stopped, it was just get it done, no was not a choice.

When was the last time any major road project was done under budget and early in the US? I do not think it has been done in my lifetime!

So for them to come out with electric cars and be dominant, I can see it happening.

It still goes back to a big problem with all electric cars. They are the biggest disposable landfill issue to come up to greet everyone. Look at the Prius. The batteries are supposed to last around 7 years. Then the car will require new ones at a cost of over 7k. That is killing resell value and destroying most economic advantages that the Prius has over gas/diesel.

That's easy Daayou. The perfect example is the Big Dig in Boston.

Oh wait.

Also, thank you everyone for paying for that one. Cause they got Federal Funds for it.

03-11-2009, 06:22 PM	#1
daayou Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 8,395	Holy Wealth Destruction Beef, this is pretty much for you. WOW - did you see what happened to the richest of the richest this year? Bill Gates is back at number 1. However we went from 60 billion to 40 billion. Buffet went from 62 billion to 37 billion, Carlos Slim is down to 35 billion. WOW. All of those guys were in the 60+ billion range last year. I am trying to find out though if that was as of Dec 31, 2008. If it was, WOW, those three could easily have another 10b cut.

03-11-2009, 10:15 PM	#4
Phegus Rar Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: North Korea Posts: 8,889	I realized something today. I am putting money into a market retirement fund. I have been doing it for 3 years now. All the money that has been put in for those 3 years is at a fraction of what it was...sucks, but I am young, it will rebound. I am still putting the same amount of money into my retirement fund now, as I was then....now I am getting more shares per dollar, when the market rebounds, that is gonna be sexy __________________ http://www.dpaddbags.com http://www.lawsonwhiteheat.com Steam: Phegan Member of the Diamond Jacket Club

03-11-2009, 10:28 PM	#5
Bonzo BEASTED Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 4,843	when (if) the market rebounds the dollar won't be worth as much, so I wouldn't get too excited. That is inevitable, so however many shares you think you have would be irrelevant when the dollar is toilet paper. __________________ This lovely sig courtesy of Sarana Platinum Jacket Member

03-12-2009, 01:04 AM	#7
Bonzo BEASTED Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 4,843	People think the big 3 are idiots because for a long time they did make inferior cars in the 90s and drove people off to buy foreign (which they did, in droves). GM and Chrysler, with the exception of Ford, do not have enough cash to sustain themselves because of their shitty sales BEFORE the credit crunch, which has simply pushed them over the edge. Yes, Toyota had big losses and so did Ford, the difference is that they will survive this without sucking government tit. __________________ This lovely sig courtesy of Sarana Platinum Jacket Member

03-12-2009, 04:28 PM	#12
Bonzo BEASTED Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 4,843	Here's some food for thought: "According to GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner, his worst decision of his tenure at GM was "axing the EV1 electric-car program and not putting the right resources into hybrids. It didn’t affect profitability, but it did affect image."[17] CEO Wagoner repeated this assertion during an NPR interview with Michelle Norris after the December 2008 Senate hearings on the U.S. Auto Industry bailout request.[18] According to the March 13, 2007, issue of Newsweek, "GM R&D chief Larry Burns . . . now wishes GM hadn't killed the plug-in hybrid EV1 prototype his engineers had on the road a decade ago: 'If we could turn back the hands of time,' says Burns, 'we could have had the Chevy Volt 10 years earlier.'"[19]" As to your comment: You don't need a hybrid for those kind of specs. My car gets 36mpg regularly and I have a huge trunk and it cost well under 20k. Quite a few other cars get similar results too. I really wonder how "prohibitive" the cost of the technology was when even after pursuing other routes GM ended up in this position anyway. __________________ This lovely sig courtesy of Sarana Platinum Jacket Member

03-11-2009, 09:29 PM	#2
Ixie Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 534	It's messed. I'm sure Buffet will be alright. I'm reading the Berkshire Hathaway 2008 Annual Report in my spare time right now. Buffet is a hero. I think I've seen some of the biggest hits to be totally honest. Dad is heavy in the auto industry after all. His company was the 3rd or 4th fastest growing one in Canada 2 years ago. It's literally worth pennies right now. A very large handful of the dealerships they hold are Chrysler which really isn't helping the situation, but it's still rather interesting how blistering the declines have been. These are guys who were building 3 dealerships this year, two of which were going to be the largest in all of western Canada, based on income of previous years. Virtually overnight the trend was completely reversed.

03-11-2009, 09:33 PM	#3
Ixie Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 534	From the first page of the report btw... remember this is just 2008 "Our decrease in net worth during 2008 was $11.5 billion, which reduced the per-share book value of both our Class A and Class B stock by 9.6%. Over the past 44 years (that is, since present management took over) book value has grown from $19 to $70,530, a rate of 20.3% compounded annually."

03-12-2009, 01:00 AM	#6
daayou Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 8,395	Ixie Yes, I have thought of you and your dad. Car dealerships are shit right now. I seriously laugh when morons say, "The big3 are idiots, they don't know what they are doing, the foreigns are so much better." I tell them, it is not a CAR issue, it is a CREDIT issue. With the credit issue putting everyone into fear mode, the industry is hurting. At the beginning of 2008, it was expected that the US car sales rate would be 17-18 million units. If I remember correctly . . . it was around 11 million. All the projections are for car sales to be in the 9-11 million range this year. NO manufacturing business that has long lead times can absorb a near 50% reduction in demand over night. Toyota has posted losses, Honda has posted losses. Unfortunately, I suspect you will see Chrysler collapse. They have to be absorbed by another just for the brand. But as far as all the dealers . . . no need for them. I laugh when our fucking moronic government states that the reason people are not buying cars is because the big 3 are not making what people want to buy. They are stating people want to buy hybrids, electric, etc. Yeah, like fuck they do. People want great quality, cheap price and power. If you can make it green, then cool. Honestly, I think the Big 3 did it correct with green. Sure Toyota sold a ton of Prius. But they also lost money on each one! The technology is close to being there. It just is too expensive at this time. Now back to the topic at hand. My wife said, "Gates and Buffet will be fine, there is no real loss." I told her, "WRONG!" There is a MAJOR loss. These guys use that wealth to make more. Both have stated that they are going to donate ~90% of it all when they die. Think about that! Last year 108 billion was going to charities. This year . . ~70 billion. That is a BIG hit to a charity. I think Buffet has probably lost another 15-25% of his net worth this year so far. Gates probably 10-15%. Look at their stocks: MSFT at the beginning of the year was 19.5 today it is 17.5, Berkshire A was ~100k, now 84k. But what hurts Buffet is what he owns! He owns a ton of Wells Fargo, a ton of AmEx, some reinsurance companies, USBancorp.

03-12-2009, 04:14 PM	#11
daayou Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 8,395	My point dyer was to show that the cost to go to this technology is prohibitive. Making a car that people will not buy because the cost is too prohibitive is bad business. It really is a matter of economics. Come out with a green car - a car that gets me 35+ mpg, that has space to store more than a condom, something that I feel safe in, something that doesn't cost too much more than what I can currently buy and I will consider it! So because GM saw that the cost to produce these cars would make them cost prohibitive they are bad? I don't get that. I call that good business. Here how about this . . . You can buy a multi cpu quad core xeon system today. You can get it with 32 gigs of ram. Is it going to do what YOU want it to? You know that is going to have a 12k price tag on it. If you have the need for it, you will buy it. If I told you that computer will consume 1/3 the energy than your 1k computer, do you care? That is the issue with green cars. Everyone figures out ROI in their head.

03-13-2009, 02:52 AM	#13
Ixie Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 534	Better food for thought. The green movement is the Holocaust or Rwanda of today. It's not something we can do with guns blazing and congress and the media shoving stupid notions upon us. It will take time, much longer than all the hype will last. Toyota isn't alive because it has the Prius. I think that much is obvious. It's about the image. Plus years of the corroding effect of strong unions and a weakened image after the cars of the 80's and 90's on the part of the US automakers. Current cars aren't bad though. Anyway, here's the rest of your quote from the ol' Wiki Dyer. According to GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner, his worst decision of his tenure at GM was "axing the EV1 electric-car program and not putting the right resources into hybrids. It didn’t affect profitability, BUT IT DID AFFECT IMAGE."[17] CEO Wagoner repeated this assertion during an NPR interview with Michelle Norris after the December 2008 Senate hearings on the U.S. Auto Industry bailout request. It's a PR stunt. Nothing else. One day a large enough market share will exist for the green cars but it's not right now, unless your retired in Florida or something. I also don't believe the EV1 didn't bite into profitability. Batteries were really fucking expensive back than. They still are, but the tech has advanced leaps and bounds since than. The Prius was not possible when the EV1 was around, plain and simple, not even the hybrid one was possible with the old tech. I'll stray off topic here for a sec but it's simply to prove a point about the green movement. Cars are taking the fire, I suppose maybe factories too, but don't you think the entire (North) American lifestyle is just wastefully excessive? Should people be torching houses like mine and Daayou's for being gigantic and wasteful of energy to heat/cool/power/whatever, the same way people have burnt Hummers to the ground for the same thing? It's a fad that people like to pretend to be in on. If the price was right and the vehicle was good enough for modern North American life, than EVs would be all over the place just for the gas savings. That's capitalism baby. Right now they are nifty showpieces. The Volt wouldn't be a smash hit even if it was sold by Toyota outside of a recession. Last edited by Ixie; 03-13-2009 at 02:55 AM.

03-13-2009, 09:46 AM	#14
Bonzo BEASTED Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 4,843	Oh, absolutely it is all due in part to the American lifestyle, but GM has said itself that if it invested in hybrids earlier, it would have had the Volt several years ago. The prospect of the Volt being a success is all they are living on right now, so obviously they made a very big mistake. So because the EV1 wasn't profitable then, you halt research on it all together and scrap all of them? Have they ever heard of investing in one's future? If I invest in something now, I don't expect profit from it right now, so why should they be any different? No, Toyota isn't alive just due to the Prius, but they are now the biggest hybrid competitor because of it and that WILL matter in the future when people say "Oh, should I buy a Prius that's been around for years or get this new Volt that costs 10 grand more from the company that may not be around long enough to honor the warranty?" Toyota has had a large suite of cars with very high MPG, not even hybrids, for many years. This, coupled with the Prius, cheaper labor costs and all of the dissatisfied GM customers that Toyota has taken from them is why they are alive and GM isn't. __________________ This lovely sig courtesy of Sarana Platinum Jacket Member

03-13-2009, 10:58 AM	#15
Pilar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 1,811	u can't say that a company who has been visibly working the longest on a technology doesn't have the marketing upper hand when the said technology becomes the new fashion statement. toyota is now in version 3.0 (or is it 4.0) of their hybrids. i'm also hoping that Honda figures out a way to reduce the manufacturing cost of FCX Clarity - i think that project looks promising. btw, have u guys seen the Karma Fisker. u can clearly tell the lines r borrowed from current models of BMW roadsters and Astin Martins - which makes sense since, Henrik Fisker had a hand in their design as well. here r some pics: http://autoshow.autos.msn.com/autosh...mentid=6010234. __________________ Barack Hussein Obama is sneaking fluoride into your drinking water.

03-13-2009, 12:31 PM	#16
Bigshooter Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Edmonton Alberta Posts: 5,592	You guys should remember that foriegn automakers were bailed out by their respective governments. This includes Toytota,Mazda,Honda etc. __________________ Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. Awaiting Diablo 3

03-13-2009, 01:07 PM	#17
daayou Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 8,395	Dyer This is a great bookmark for seeing what is reality in the car sales market. http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/pag...autosales.html They update it each month. Please, tell me about the Prius again . . . It is not even one of the top 20 cars sold. So is a business bad for making what people want to buy or bad for not making enough of what others want consumers to buy? The problem with people, and that includes me, is that it is very hard to not understand why things can not change immediately. I mean, we see in the movies that things can happen in 2 hours, why can't the real world be that way? Innovation occurs. It just does not occur as fast as people want it to be in an economical way. Personally, I think this crew here is jaded. We all have some heavy background in the 'puter world. We realize that next year we can buy something for half the price with twice the speed and twice the storage, why doesn't the rest of the world work this way? Getting that through my thick skull took a LONG time. I brought Telsa up for a reason. If they sell a car for 80k, what do you think there cost is to make it? It ain't cheap. What is the biggest cost component? Batteries. I got invited to a group to listen to people pitch their business. It was a 60 second pitch followed up by 10 minutes of questions. One company was doing battery replacements for Prius. I am trying to remember exactly what their deal was (ironically, I do have the speech on tape.) They had on their team the guy who did the batteries for Telsa. They were looking at selling replacement batteries for the Prius. They had longer charges, less weight, more efficient, lasted longer. They were selling them for 15k. The margins were 10%. So their cost on the replacement packs were 13,500! I sat there and figured it out, it was a SEVEN year ROI. I asked them why someone would spend 15k for replacement batteries on a 25k car that would have a seven year ROI. It makes NO sense to me. See this is the next big issue that people do not realize is coming. Batteries are NO WHERE near as efficient as either a diesel or gas engine. Batteries die over time and need complete replacement. They are not cheap! Replacing an engine is significantly cheaper than replacing a battery pack. You do realize that Toyota Prius' are the ultimate in a disposable car don't you? When that battery pack dies in 10 years, what do you do? Are you going to spend 15k replacing the batteries? A 25k car at purchase, 10 years old, putting 15k into it again? Huh? Go out and look around. How many cars do you see that are still running fine that are 10-20 years old? Now before you go off on me . . . Yes, the cost of the batteries will drop. How far and how fast is the question. If you think that they will decrease in cost to become more affordable, then why shouldn't GM or any other company just wait until it becomes more cost effective and them implement?

03-13-2009, 02:03 PM	#18
Ixie Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 534	I think we all forgot why we got into this debate. Daayou said the gov't and populace was retarded for telling the US automakers that the only way they were going to survive was by building more hybrids and/or EV's. Again, I think we can all agree that this WOULDN'T save the US autos and that it would probably just speed up their collapse the way things are RIGHT NOW. The only way that could really work was if the gov't simply bought them or paid them to use their resources to further the tech. Kinda like when they used car factories to help build shit for the war machine back in WW2. Right now they are saying whatever they have to to get those loans And again nobody is arguing that Toyota has better vehicles. Their whole line-up is decently fuel efficient and alot have hybrid most, while still being functional. Imagine the shit storm if Chrysler made the Sequoia though... that thing is BEYOND huge. I also don't disagree that Toyota will be in a way better position when the tech finally comes full circle with EVs and Hybrids. Ultimately the argument here (at least as far as I see it) was that making cheap, quality, and reliable cars is a far better model than "going green" for two companies that are already on life support. They can't afford to completely re-invent themselves or sell cars where 1/3 of the price is a flippin battery to a market that is JUST emerging. On top of that, and maybe this isn't entirely true outside of places I have lived, people LIKE THEIR BIG SUVs. Half of the vehicles on the roads here are SUVs or trucks built by the Big3. Another big chunk is "affordable luxury" vehicles (the [new] 300, for example) that until recently, the foreigns didn't really have. It's their market and they were smart pursuing it. Sure they should have tried a bit harder to get a foothold on smaller, more fuel efficient cars, but that's the realm of the foreign companies. Yet another unfortunate issue of timing. When fuel went through the roof it drew fire on pretty much their entire line-up. The problems for GM and Chrysler right now pretty much have nothing to do with not having a massive hybrid branch. Consider Chrysler. They got fucked by Daimler. They got fucked by Cerberus. They got fucked by the unions. They got fucked when oil went nuts. Again, they haven't had time to recover from the tarnished image of the 90's or the effects of the introduction of cheap foreign cars (which were utter pieces of shit when they first got here). Toyota has taken hits as big as those taken by the big three during some months since this whole collapse. Like Big's mentioned, they have gotten help from the Japanese and simply had more cash on tap to weather it out. The future is definitely in EVs and Hybrids and whatever else we can dream up and it most certainly is a good idea to get in the game as early as possible. The innovation would never happen if there wasn't incentive to gain early market share. But the point ultimately is that it won't save the ailing auto's like Obama wants you to think it will. One day you will wake up and there will be lots of these cars on the road, but by the time that happens you will have forget entirely about the current green craze. Last edited by Ixie; 03-13-2009 at 02:07 PM.

03-13-2009, 02:31 PM	#19
daayou Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 8,395	Ixie I actually think you are going to see a bigger push in diesel before you see hybrids. Diesel technology has gotten so much better. It is cleaner, less knocking and the mileage is much better. Look at what VW has been doing with their cars. The infrastructure to get across the country with a vehicle is already there. And what is funny . . . the Jetta's are getting close to the same mileage as a Prius!

03-13-2009, 10:14 PM	#23
Bret Administrator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: New England > all.. GIANTSSSSS Posts: 4,548	screw all the vertical integration, they need to move to some horizontal integration models. __________________

03-13-2009, 11:59 PM	#24
daayou Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 8,395	Beef Out of boredom I did watch the Stewart v. Cramer. To me? It reeked of both of them wanting ratings. I am trying to think of the gain for either one of them other than ratings. All Stewart had to say was, "You do realize that your show should be on Comedy Central, not on CNBC." That would have ended it all there. Cramer acts like a comedian, his show has little to no value. It has been a touting show for the longest time. CNBC is owned by GE. GE earned over 50% of their profits from their finance division. GE makes weapons for war. Do you think those are ever reported? When I realized that they were not reporters but bouncing heads supporting their advertisers, they lost all value. The only value is staring at Maria Cabruso Carrerra's tits. I do enjoy Fast Money. I like Uncle Fester - he generally tells it as it is. I like Karen - she is one smart woman! The Najarian twins are nice to listen to for some options discussions. Ratigan does a decent job of pissing people off with good questions that he never gets interviews anymore. I do have respect for Deutsch and his show The Big Idea - but it has not been on in a long time It was the ONLY show I tivo'd. But Stewart didn't rip him at all. There were still gloves on both of them and Cramer just sat there smug and took it.

03-14-2009, 06:04 PM	#25
Pilar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 1,811	Stewart was friggin' excellent. partly that interview makes me sad cuz it accentuates the depravity of the so called real journalists who's job it is to take these guys to task. __________________ Barack Hussein Obama is sneaking fluoride into your drinking water.

03-15-2009, 12:45 AM	#27
daayou Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 8,395	Dyer So what? Ford F150s then should be there own brand. They are outselling everything known to mankind. I don't know what you are getting at. Toyota will have NO patent on batteries. The batteries do not come from them. So how can they have a lead? The major rule of business - barriers to entry. What are the barriers for GM/Ford/Chrysler/Bmw/Mercedes to just go to the source that Toyota has and buy the batteries? Now they will have some more experience in drivetrains, and integration, but honestly, all they need to do is to buy a Prius and dissect it! The computer industry does not have a monopoly on reverse engineering Now Toyota will have an advantage in manufacturing though as there is no ramp up compared to another company, but that is about the only barrier I can think of.

04-02-2009, 03:22 PM	#28
Pilar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 1,811	China Vies to Be World’s Leader in Electric Cars http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/bu...c.html?_r=1&em __________________ Barack Hussein Obama is sneaking fluoride into your drinking water.

04-02-2009, 04:09 PM	#29
daayou Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 8,395	Pilar It would not surprise me to see them do it. When I was in Shanghai I saw something that just shocked the shit out of me. They were building another tunnel to get from one side to the other (iirc the hungpu river?) The tunnel was supposed to be done in (iirc) 3 years. They finished it UNDER budget and almost 18 months early. It was incredible! They never stopped, it was just get it done, no was not a choice. When was the last time any major road project was done under budget and early in the US? I do not think it has been done in my lifetime! So for them to come out with electric cars and be dominant, I can see it happening. It still goes back to a big problem with all electric cars. They are the biggest disposable landfill issue to come up to greet everyone. Look at the Prius. The batteries are supposed to last around 7 years. Then the car will require new ones at a cost of over 7k. That is killing resell value and destroying most economic advantages that the Prius has over gas/diesel.