Staying On Course
Today, we announced our third-quarter financial figures. And, frankly speaking, there’s no sugar-coating these results. Clearly this was a brutal quarter and to say I’m not satisfied with these results would be a monumental understatement. Market conditions remain very difficult, but we’re working aggressively to manage our business through this period, while ensuring we can capitalize on growth once markets stabilize. And I do believe the markets will eventually begin to return to strength, given the coordinated global actions to boost consumer confidence. But it’s going to take time. In addition to the dramatic fall in consumer confidence and spending, GM Europe continues to face non-operational economic headwinds as well. Unfavorable exchange rates, high commodity prices and saturated western European markets, as well as the economic impact of the financial crisis in key Western European markets will persist for the near-term picture.
Without doubt, these took a heavy toll on our third-quarter financials, as the effects of the financial crisis have intensified in Europe. Foreign exchange rates between the pound and the euro hit us hard because we sell considerably more cars in the U.K. than we produce there — the experts say we have a significant exposure to pound/euro exchange rate movements. That was compounded by a correction in the residual values of major rental fleet sales, mostly in the U.K., and for Saab worldwide. GME’s share of global structural charges for product development increased year-over-year as well. With commodity prices finally falling, we saw a significant negative hedge position in Q3.
The other third of the deterioration vs. last year was attributable to automotive operations, caused by weakness in key Western European markets. Overall, the automotive industry has seen a dramatic market decline in Western Europe of 10.6 percent in the third quarter. Germany was down 2.6 percent, the U.K. down by 18.5 percent, Italy down by 12.7 percent and Spain had a massive drop of 35 percent. For GM, that weakness in Western Europe markets was only partially offset by Eastern European / Russian sales. For example, in the first nine months of the year, Opel increased its sales in Russia by 73 percent, although these constitute less profitable sales for GM Europe, mostly due to the high import tariffs.
Although high import tariffs do limit the financial success of this operation (as long as we don’t produce most of our volume there), I do believe that the Russian market will continue to grow medium and long term. To meet this growth, we will increase our presence in Russia by opening a new GM plant in St. Petersburg on November 7, where the Opel Antara and the Chevrolet Captiva will be built, followed by the Chevrolet Cruze next year. As GM traditionally builds cars where it sells, the opening of this new, state-of-the-art plant is an important move for GM and the St. Petersburg region.
We are in a pan-economic global crisis driven by the lack of credit/liquidity at all levels of the market. I’ve spoken to business leaders both inside and outside our industry and GM is certainly not the only company under intense pressure. We have to act aggressively and we are doing so already. Part of our strategy to deal with these headwinds is to continue to improve revenue and productivity and to get the cost base of the operation in line with market demand. Clearly, we have much to do in this area over the next several months.
At the same time, I should be clear that despite the difficult financial situation, we will continue to invest into the development of our vehicles and invest in growth markets. Importantly, our quality and reputation scores are improving in external studies and we are getting much-improved overall feedback on our cars. In fact, Autobild recently positioned Opel as the best European brand in terms of quality and the readers of auto motor und sport voted Zafira to be the most attractive and flexible compact van. The media feedback on the new Insignia was particularly encouraging as is the order intake even before the car hits our dealers’ showrooms.
Headwinds can slow you down, but you don’t give up. You need to quickly adapt to the conditions, and, with determination, not lose sight of the course you have set.
Carl-Peter







Comments (16)
Jean-Charles Jacquemin said:
Thanks Mister Forster,
Just one question : will the plans for the introduction of E-REV vehicles like the Volt or derivatives of the Opel Flextreme concept be altered or may we count on an introduction of those vehicles for early 2011 as announced previously ?
Thanks a lot for your attention.
JC Jacquemin
A.Woodruffe said:
Hello Carl-Peter,
Most salespeople will say that they started to feel the squeeze about 3 years ago, yet area managers kept forcing higher yearly targets upon dealerships. As you know the higher expectations didn't come from them, they were just the messengers with the information from a higher authority. Most likely someone who has never experienced a true retail sale and had caught onto the new industry jargon of "Cost to change". Which was all well and good telling your customer is was just £2,000 to change, but 3 years down the line and 2k has turned into 14K! All because the idea of business is to grow; to be stronger and better than your opponents. So the industry as whole have been 'talking up the deal' not to lose market share. Forcing more cars into a market that ultimately cannot cope with the quantity.
As you know once annual targets are set you can't just phone your suppliers 6 months later and cancel your future orders. When dealing in millions of units companies rely on those contacts for their existence. You have a hard choice; stop production an suffer the consequences of contact buyouts, employee layoffs, and possible plant closures. Or start pushing more metal through 'fleet' for effectively zero profit in the hope you can ride it out and prey someone else's bubble will burst before yours does.
Nobody is making money; from the salesman on the shop floor to the manufacturer themselves and any supplier connected to the auto industry. Those who could see the bigger picture knew the reins would eventually be ripped from their hands, Quarter 3's figures has confirmed for most manufacturers' they are no longer in control. Unfortunately GM is in the spotlight, when it would be nice if the media named a few other companies that are in a financial crisis. If it were my decision, I would not be looking at acquiring Chrysler right now. However; maybe GM see that they have no choice, because the fear is that if Chrysler go under, they will drag Ford and GM with them. I see the GMAC connection being the chance that GM has of securing a deal with some governmental help and avoid an industrial catastrophe. Which ever way the situation may end up looking GM.NA has too many brands, with seemingly alike looking vehicles to one another using identical powertrains; a problem I am glad that GME doesn't have, which brings to my beloved brand.
How much say does GME have over the future of Saab. I fear that GM.NA would rather still push hefty V6 Caddys onto Europeans than turbo charged I-4 Saabs. I do believe GME see the picture more clearly. I have read a lot about delays, model cancelations and even complete R&D cuts that ultimately would leave the company to run dry.
So may I ask if you would be able to put me at ease? What is the situation with Saab?
Does GME have the final say on Saab's future?
And if GM really could not see a long term future with the brand would they do an 'Olds' or at least seek a new owner?
I really hope you may be answer these questions I would like to continue to purchase vehicles with a griffin badge and you words would be greatly appreciated.
Best regards
Anthony
Robert Barr said:
Firstly, I want to say that I appreciate GM having an open forum such as this for consumers, investors, and anyone interested to have the ability to share opinions and ideas with you.
With that said, your numbers yesterday are a disgrace and your burn rate IS going to require a bankruptcy filing at some point. The leadership at GM has taken a stance that the "B" word isn't even going to be discussed. Well, that is par for the course from this management team.
I do believe GM should have been provided with the financing to acquire Chrysler. Chrysler is dying under Cerberus and needs to be part of a legitimate car company.
I do not believe funding should be provided to GM without stipulations. GM has been poorly run for a long time and in spite of that fact you remain a worldwide industrial behemoth that truly falls into the category of "can't fail."
I mean, if the Treasury can throw a life line to some small bank in Peddler's Cove Kansas then our bailout plan should be expanded to support the big three...but there should be a price for your bad management.
There needs to be a revitalization of heavy industry in this country and who better to support that endeavor than GM and the other members of the big three! Let's get to work!
Christian said:
Hello Mister Foster,
I speak to you as an Opel owner and fan.
I agree with you, this year was not a very good one for the car industry.
I see Opel advancing year by year in terms of quality, design and engineering, but it seems that is not enough.
In my opinion, this could be a turning point for all the car manufacturers in Europe.
It is clear that some kind of change in terms of thinking is need.
Hybrid systems, downsized engines are key factors to win the market.
I know that Opel is preparing all of this, but all the others car manufacturers are doing the same.
It will be a mistake to arrive latter on the market with this things.
When do we see the all this new stuffs on all current Opel models?
I speak of the newly cheered 1.4 turbo engine. It will be also a variable valve-timing variant?
When Astra and Insignia will benefit from a hybrid variant?
Christian
Best Regards,
Jean-Charles Jacquemin said:
Christian,
I feel pretty much the same as you do and my question in the first comment may be complemented by yours.
Regards,
JC
Gereon (from Germany) said:
Hi Christian,
interesting comment. So far I was asking myself, why there's already a Hybrid-version of the Opel Antara, i.e. the Saturn Vue Green Line, on American roads, soon even available as a 2-mode-hybrid and later additionally as PHEV. Also for the Saturn Aura, (more stylish) counterpart to the Opel Vectra at least a mild hybrid-system is offered. Why didn't Opel introduce these here in Europe yet? It would have made Opel unique among all German manufacturers and could have created an image for Opel as a technology-leader! I simply don't get it. In my opinion it's just ridiculous, when some journalists over here are claiming, that Opel's current problems are caused by GMNA. IMHO, those people seem to know very little about the global car-industry! I'd wish, the Opel-management would correct this wrong perception publicly. That's typical German what's going on here at the media. There's always anyone else guilty... That's so easy.
BTW, I am also an Opel-fan. I am owning a 1977 Opel Rekord D (vintage-car-registration). For daily driving I am using my LPG-fueled 2001 Chevrolet Alero.
Jean-Charles Jacquemin said:
Hi Gereon (from Germany),
I do not think the news about the Saturn Vue Green Line is as bright as you say.
The plug-in version has just been delayed, see :
http://gm-volt.com/2008/11/10/plug-in-saturn-vue-officially-moved-to-2011-cruze-and-volt-still-on-for-2010/
For daily driving, I use an Opel Astra break (1.7 CDTI) and an Opel Corsa (1.3 CDTI), I could keep both vehicles forever except they run on diesel,. If I could retrofit them, with a good E-REV powertrain like the one intended for the Chevrolet Volt,I'll do it overnight and be happy with that.
Gereon (from Germany) said:
Hi Jean-Charles,
I think the postponed introduction of vehicles such as the Cruze (in the US), the CTS Coupe and the PHEV-version of the Vue actually has not much to do with possible doubts regarding those vehicles. Much more I think it's a smart move by GM to delay certain models amidst the deepest economic crisis. IMHO it makes not a lot of sense to launch numerous models when there's a significantly decreased number of people in the market. Regarding high-efficient Hybrids, the impact on the image of a manufacturer shouldn't be underestimated. Just look at Toyota or Honda. German manufacturers still oversleep this tendency and so Opel could go ahead without big financial investments. The technology is available at GMNA, as I said.
Jean-Charles Jacquemin said:
Hi Gereon,
I agree completely with you. Opel must go ahead asap.
Did you heard or read about the Saab hybrid ?
See :
http://www.trollhattansaab.net/archives/2006/04/did_gm_screw_sa.html#comments
and
http://www.aftonbladet.se/bil/article367471.ab
It seems that the technology was already there two years ago, and that some people at GM thought it was not a good idea.
But to correct its own mistakes is not a sin ...
Regards and "no plug, no deal"
Gereon (from Germany) said:
Hi Jean-Charles,
as I believe, until recently there has been a lot of doubt among European manufacturers regarding hybrids. But I think they are increasingly learning their lessons. Even VW plans to introduce a Golf-version, similar to the Chevy Volt, whereas this model reportedly not completely will match the capabilities (electric-only-range) of the Volt.
I am seriously considering a Chevy Volt as my next car. So I hope there soon will be governmental aid for GM in the USA. I think this company seriously strives for making the technology viable and available, which is required for future transportation. Journalists in Germany claim, GM only produces gas-guzzlers. That's simply a lie. Either they have no idea about the subject or they are paid for spreading around such nonsense.
Best regards, enjoy your weekend.
Jean-Charles Jacquemin said:
Good Night Gereon,
Thanks, I just read in a Belgian weekly newspaper that Audi is considering a sportback version (5 doors) of the new A1 with both a gas engine and an electric motor.
The car will be plugable and could make 100 kms on electric power alone.
This could be my next car if I cannot get a Volt (I'm #684 on the unofficial waiting list of Dr Lyle Dennis, the founder of GM-Vol.com, this waiting list reached 45.000 people yesterday).
Have a nice week-end too.
NPNS,
JC
Gereon (from Germany) said:
Dear Mr. Forster,
referring to the latest media-reports about a loan-guarantee, to be granted to Opel by the affected German States and/or the Federal Government (Chancellor Mrs. Merkel), I urgently would recommend that Opel should deal with this matter offensively in public. So far I couldn't read anything about that on the Opel-website, whereas a much discussed issue. As I could watch on TV yesterday, there already seem to be Opel-dealerships, reporting about customers, who might scared off to buying an Opel, worrying about the 6-years-warranty or even the spare-parts-supply in case of a collapse of Opel, a scenario, widely featured by the media recently. IMHO there needs to come up a loud an clear statement a.s.a.p., that Opel will not disappear from the automotive landscape and the requested loan-guarantee is just a safety-measure for an unlikely worst-case-scenario related to GMNA. Thanks for paying attention.
Benedikt said:
Dear Mr. Forster,
I frequently visit this blog. As a student in business administration with car-affinity it's always great to read what's generally going on at the manufacturer of my Astra Cabrio and to read it directly from the top-management.
You wrote about the advanced orders of the Insignia. Can you give as a approximate number? How many are "sold" already?
Thank you!
Chris Preuss said:
Thanks to all of you who have been commenting here...I want to apologize that CPF has not been in a position to reply...we're obviously a bit busy right now as he gets ready to meet with government officials today. Let me see if I can answer a few open questions....
Jean-Charles Jacquemin said:
"Just one question : will the plans for the introduction of E-REV vehicles like the Volt or derivatives of the Opel Flextreme concept be altered or may we count on an introduction of those vehicles for early 2011 as announced previously ?"
Stay tuned...we've not revealed the info, but expect a strong Opel brand identity with the EREV it gets.
A.Woodruffe said:
"How much say does GME have over the future of Saab. I fear that GM.NA would rather still push hefty V6 Caddys onto Europeans than turbo charged I-4 Saabs. I do believe GME see the picture more clearly. I have read a lot about delays, model cancelations and even complete R&D cuts that ultimately would leave the company to run dry.
So may I ask if you would be able to put me at ease? What is the situation with Saab?"
The idea that there is a NA axe to grind against Saab is simply not true. Both Cadillac and Saab are global brands with very distinct brand identities...and Saab is on the eve of getting more new product than at anytime in its history. While I think it imprudent to make any speculations on any part of our business in the future...given the current situation...I would suggest the proof of the support of Saab is in the products it's getting.
Jean-Charles Jacquemin said:
"It seems that the technology was already there two years ago, and that some people at GM thought it was not a good idea."
Saab powetrain used an existing configuration of a GM North American technology for a one-off concept. The reason that the pure concept/image play was put off was because the company had already made a huge committement to the EREV system that was eventually displayed in the Chevy Volt. The technology Saab used for the concept was never viable for production.
Thanks for all of your support and comments!!
Chris Preuss
GME VP of Communications
Jean-Charles Jacquemin said:
Thanks Mr Preuss for your answers.
We cross our fingers then and wait for the news.
Best regards,
Mike said:
Maybe the leaders of GM should learn about "responsibility". Maybe the leadership at GM should recognize they made bad decisions and betted the company's future on bad ideas. I thought the whole idea behind capitalism was companies that lack ingenuity, (or suck) fail.. Hmmmmmm... maybe moving jobs overseas should not of been your only money saving idea.. Why do you want help from our government when you decided moving jobs overseas was better.. Maybe you should of been thinking innovation instead of saving money that you somehow didn't save.. Everything defies logic.. You made bad decisions and you moved jobs out of the US to save money but somehow lack money.. Either way, the GM leaders need to remove themselves from their ivory towers.