evok

RWD 2008? - No - I think Edmunds is confused. As much as I would like to see that happen, it is just not possible or planned. MKS 08 yes - MKR no

With Saturn as I have said, not being associated with GM is the plus. But yes a redirection can happen if the product is right. Nissan has done it with the Altima, etc, DCX with the original LH an LX. It can happen. GM just has to design a business case for realistic targets. I would not call a Malibu an aspiration vehicle or a LaSabre which have performed well in recent quality studies. The issue is the dometics still have plenty of perceived bagage as far as the public is concerned. Toyota as far as the buyer is concerned is consistent. The domestics are not.

You are absolutely wrong. There is enough difference in ECE and FMVSS/CMVSS in crashworthiness alone to justify independent certification for the given market based upon the program. Because of differences in tests and test velocities the countermeasures to meet certification requirements may be different. That will include structure, air bags, deployment timings and the list goes on. And that does not include the tests for marketing such as NCAP and IIHS. Not to mention that requirements do change in all of the markets, and these companies have to factor that into the plans.

Saturn as a brand has a number of things going for it. 1) Great dealer satisfaction. 2) The brand is not perceived to be associated with GM in the greater publics minds eye. My bullet number 2 is what saved the brand. IMO - Outside of Cadillac it would be tough for me to get into a GM vehicle, but I would consider a Saturn. With GM diddling with Saturn for so long, and outside of the VUE there has been no growth, I am sure all of those once loyal Saturn owners have moved on. With this Euro focused brand being a WIP and the Aura being too new, it is too early to gauge how the public is reacting to the new look. But in the publics mind it is still a differenet type of company and a different type of car and because it is not associated with GM, that is a good thing.

Obviously you do not COLLATERAL AND BORROWING BASE OVERVIEW

No need to. I think after this action by Ford we can agree with their situation. I found that interesting also and also agree.

Please go and read the Collateral and Borrowing Base section of the SEC filing. That section identifies what was used to back these loans. Including in that filing at the end, are the assets, and intellectual property used to back the these recent loans. Some of the trademarks used include: Ford, Mercury, Lincoln brand names, brand cues, and brand identifiers such as the Ford script, Mustang Prancing horse and hood scoop. I will be crystal clear - Ford borrowed against every thing they have to get this loan so the company has a shot to survive.

If you took the time to actually read the filing you would see that was a direct quote from Ford. Ford is preparing to have a negative cash flow of 17B over the next two years. That is on top of the 3B that will come out of their liquid position in the 4thQ. Might I remind you, that "you" are the one that brought up profit and loss. Not I. Cash flow and profit/loss are different line items on the ledger.

"During the period 2007 through 2009, we expect cumulative Automotive operating-related cash outflows of about $10 billion and cumulative cash expenditures for restructuring actions of about $7 billion. More than half of this $17 billion cash outflow is expected to occur in 2007. This cash outflow primarily reflects substantial operating losses in our Automotive sector through 2008 and cash expenditures incurred in connection with personnel separations. It also reflects our expectation to continue to invest in new products throughout this period at about the same level as we have during the past few years, or approximately $7 billion annually."

Come again - they just announced that they morgaged the name Ford, its script, the Mustang prancing horse and other stuff to borrow 18B and will spend 17B in the next 12 - 24 months. That is cash spent. Let's step back and rationalize that for a second. http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFramese...2F2006&pdf=

Just announced today, 17B cash flow demand next year. So much for Ford having 20+B in the bank and that being enough as per old discussions.

For someone that likes to come across as knowledgable about automotive, it sounds like you do not even have a subscription to AN?

Tell me Jesnson all about federal regs!

HUH read what I said.

Do you have proof it does? Just like a good BS artist you seem to have all the answers. Show me some facts.