GM Posts $39 BILLION loss for 3rd Quarter

[Dragon]

http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/07/news/compa...dex.htm?cnn=yes

[RJB]

!!!!WHAT????!!!! This is very bad news, and not needed when they are trying to get back on the up swing.

[6t5frlane]

Man thats a LOT of coin.....Not good for GM at all

[bowtie_dude]

The article doesn't do a very good job of explaining the loss. Apparently it has something to do with tax credits that won't be earned due to forecasted profit-loss. In the Detnews article I read, if they show profit and forecast future profit, they can apply the tax credit back to their earnings report and show a $39 BILLION dollar profit.

Someone else needs to explain this...

[Z-06]

But in a television interview early Wednesday, GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner said he is confident the company is in better position to earn money going forward and utilize the tax credits. He said it needed to take the writedown at this point to comply with strict accounting rules.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like it is more of a "paper" loss to adjust the writedowns and correct the accounting books which they had from the previous mess.Physically GM did not lose any money (may be by market perception which may cause loss of share value) in value, this may be the same as the payout last year of $10B, when GM handed the money for buying out jobs.

[bowtie_dude]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like it is more of a "paper" loss to adjust the writedowns and correct the accounting books which they had from the previous mess.Physically GM did not lose any money (may be by market perception which may cause loss of share value) in value, this may be the same as the payout last year of $10B, when GM handed the money for buying out jobs.

Thats the way I understood it as well.

[bowtie_dude]

From the Detroit News article:

In announcing the accounting charge on Tuesday, GM said it was doing so in accordance with the Financial Accounting Standards Board's Statement of Financial Accounting Standards, which requires companies to offset the value of tax credits if they do not foresee earning taxable income in the near-term.

Which tells me that they have to show a loss for tax credits they would have earned were they forecasting near-term profitability. If they turn their operations around and show that they will be profitable, they apply those credits back to their earnings report.

[bowtie_dude]

The silver lining is that GM didn't actually LOSE this much money. But what it does mean is that 1) They don't foresee profits in the near future and 2) This will lower their market value which will hurt them somewhat.

[ZL-1]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like it is more of a "paper" loss to adjust the writedowns and correct the accounting books which they had from the previous mess.Physically GM did not lose any money (may be by market perception which may cause loss of share value) in value, this may be the same as the payout last year of $10B, when GM handed the money for buying out jobs.

It's not a cash charge.

[Camino LS6]

What exactly does this mean?

Sounds like financial gymnastics to me.

Clear as mud.

[Newbiewar]

sounds to me like they are making way for a 39 billion dollar Trust Fund...

is it coincedice that that is the aproximated amount they were going to put asside for it...?

is it coincidence that that is the approximate cash that they have?

or what about the fact they have an opperating profit of 122 million for this quarter...?

[ZL-1]

A company can use those deferred tax assets against future earnings (there ususally is a time frame for which a company can do that - 5 or 6 years, for example), but since there isn't a reasonable expectation of future profits to use those tax credits against, they have to write them off: remove tham from the asset's side of the balance sheet (lowering balance sheet total) agains recording a loss on the P&L statement that reduces earnings (reducing the stockholders equity component of the balance sheet by the same amount).

[enzl]

In other words, more bad/mediocre news is expected in the future, so please don't hold these tax credits as assets, since to truly be assets, we need to make X+ profits to apply them.

They're not expecting reasonably foreseeable profit in the future to keep them on the books. It's not good.

GM can't make enough profit with the model mix---the historical dependency on obscene truck profits and little to no profits elsewhere is coming home to roost, unfortunately.

[ZL-1]

In other words, more bad/mediocre news is expected in the future, so please don't hold these tax credits as assets, since to truly be assets, we need to make X+ profits to apply them.

They're not expecting reasonably foreseeable profit in the future to keep them on the books. It's not good.

GM can't make enough profit with the model mix---the historical dependency on obscene truck profits and little to no profits elsewhere is coming home to roost, unfortunately.

And the auto operations' net earnings (excluding the deferred tax write off) were a meager $122 million when revenue was $43.1 billion. In essence they were at their breakeven point for the quarter, so... what's next?

[Oracle of Delphi]

It means they won't have as much money in the future as they thought they were going to have, therefore there could be platform cuts and/or plant closures or both.

[balthazar]

Wagoner was on --IIRC-- Squawkbox this morning. Did he have a mini-stroke at some point?; he often talks out of the right side of his mouth and he was blinking every 2-3 seconds.

Anyway, he said the same as above- car-operations profit of $122M, the $xB was a non-cash charge. He also said GM car operations have been profitable all year (again; IIRC), and that was expected to continue in the near future. Granted, it's not a huge profit, but it's far better than running in the red there.

With the recent profitablility in c.o., the ramp-up of the recent UAW contract, better operating fundamentals ($9B in reduced expenditures, reduced inventories) and with the future product pipeleine in mind, he was (naturally) quite bullish on the near future for GM.

Edited November 7, 2007 by balthazar

[ellives]

Wagoner was on --IIRC-- Squawkbox this morning. Did he have a mini-stroke at some point?; he often talks out of the right side of his mouth and he was blinking every 2-3 seconds.

Anyway, he said the same as above- car-operations profit of $122M, the $xB was a non-cash charge. He also said GM car operations have been profitable all year (again; IIRC), and that was expected to continue in the near future. Granted, it's not a huge profit, but it's far better than running in the red there.

With the recent profitablility in c.o., the ramp-up of the recent UAW contract, better operating fundamentals ($9B in reduced expenditures, reduced inventories) and with the future product pipeleine in mind, he was (naturally) quite bullish on the near future for GM.

He'll be bullish until Toyota ratchet's up the incentives on their product line to keep the losses coming at GM and Ford. They can certainly afford to do it. Still feels like "death by a thousand cuts" to me.

[tama z71]

As great as the possibility exists that this is only paper accounting and has no major effects in GM's wallet, the perception of 39 BILLION DOLLAR LOSS is just too juicy for the media not to spin and too attention grabbing for people to look into fully.

[Oracle of Delphi]

Did he have a mini-stroke at some point?; he often talks out of the right side of his mouth and he was blinking every 2-3 seconds.

Yeah nothing wrong at GM with all that blinking going on is there?

[makfu]

In related news, earlier today, Detroit based General Motors (NYSE:GM) finally approved production of Mak's new 2008, 3.6 DI, FE-3, 6-Speed Manual equipped Cadillac CTS after repeated delays. When asked about this recent development, Mak stated, "Holy crap, I never thought these clowns were going to actually build my car. You know, I must REALLY like the new Cadillac CTS to have put up with all the misinformation and months of missed-production dates".

While a positive sign, this news did not impact GM's shares, which closed down $2.21, or 6.11% after GM reported a much larger than expected operating loss and a whopping 39 billion dollar non-cash accounting charge.

-Mak

08, FE3 CTS 6-Speed

(Note to GM: It might help if you could actually deliver cars when you say you will.)

[ZL-1]

In related news, earlier today, Detroit based General Motors (NYSE:GM) finally approved production of Mak's new 2008, 3.6 DI, FE-3, 6-Speed Manual equipped Cadillac CTS after repeated delays. When asked about this recent development, Mak stated, "Holy crap, I never thought these clowns were going to actually build my car. You know, I must REALLY like the new Cadillac CTS to have put up with all the misinformation and months of missed-production dates".

While a positive sign, this news did not impact GM's shares, which closed down $2.21, or 6.11% after GM reported a much larger than expected operating loss and a whopping 39 billion dollar non-cash accounting charge.

that made me laugh!

[CMG]

Threads like these are toooo funny.

"How to spin a THIRTY NINE BILLION DOLLAR LOSS".

[Cory Wolfe]

Ouch. I had to do a few double takes and date checks upon reading that.

Edited November 8, 2007 by blackviper8891

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Sounds like an accounting thing to me.

Is this including one time transactions or no?

[haypops]

Bloomberg: General Motors Corp., the world’s largest automaker, reported a record $39 billion quarterly loss after three money-losing years forced the company to write down the value of future tax benefits. The loss, excluding the tax writedown, was $2.80 a share, more than 12 times analysts’ estimates. Mortgage-related losses at GM’s partly owned finance unit overwhelmed auto sales that were the highest ever. GM shares fell 5 percent, giving the Detroit-based automaker a market value of $19.4 billion, about half the size of the third-quarter loss. GM signaled that it won’t generate enough earnings to use the benefits. Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner cited concerns about defaults on subprime mortgage loans at GMAC LLC and auto sales in the U.S. and Germany . Slumping U.S. sales in the past half year “feel like the conditions we’re going to face,” Wagoner said. “This all suggests that GM thinks that things are so ugly out there that they can’t see the possibility of profitability for many quarters, maybe even years,” Bradley Rubin, an analyst with BNP Paribas in New York, said in an interview.

[longtooth]

Sounds like an accounting thing to me.

Is this including one time transactions or no?

Less concern for one time charges as opposed to last ever charge if they keep up the finagling instead of getting down to business. Sub out the sleight of hand horsesh*t to David Copperfield, and let's make cars!

[GXT]

Looks like GM is being forced to raise fleet sales to try to keep sales flat Y-On-Y.

Page 18:

http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/..._Highlights.pdf

U.S. Retail/Fleet Mix 3Q2007/3Q2006/YTD2007/YTD2006

% Fleet Sales - Cars 38.1%/33.9%/36.0%/36.1%

% Fleet Sales - Trucks 21.6%/17.3%/20.8%/21.3%

Total Vehicles 27.8%/24.0%/26.7%/27.2%

Fleet is up some 15.8% in Q3 2007 vs Q3 2006. It is up almost enough to eliminate all the retail sales gains in the fist 6 months of the year.

In cars, fleet went from 33.9% to 38.1% at the same time that US share went from 21.8% to 20.4%.

[gm4life]

This is not good, but the bastards in the media will spin it anyway they want so people will have a negative image of GM.

[CMG]

This is not good, but the bastards in the media will spin it anyway they want so people will have a negative image of GM.

"The media" doesn't have to try toooooo hard to "spin" anything when there's a THIRTY NINE BILLION DOLLAR LOSS...?

$39,000,000,000.00

:AH-HA_wink:

[enzl]

Looks like GM is being forced to raise fleet sales to try to keep sales flat Y-On-Y.

Page 18:

http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/..._Highlights.pdf

U.S. Retail/Fleet Mix 3Q2007/3Q2006/YTD2007/YTD2006

% Fleet Sales - Cars 38.1%/33.9%/36.0%/36.1%

% Fleet Sales - Trucks 21.6%/17.3%/20.8%/21.3%

Total Vehicles 27.8%/24.0%/26.7%/27.2%

Fleet is up some 15.8% in Q3 2007 vs Q3 2006. It is up almost enough to eliminate all the retail sales gains in the fist 6 months of the year.

In cars, fleet went from 33.9% to 38.1% at the same time that US share went from 21.8% to 20.4%.

As I've stated (and been crucified for) in other threads, GM's 'recovery' has been a sham, financially. The fleeting issue is a complete 180 to what was promised---a commitment to owners to reduce the practice--and I believe one that has propped up a regime that has been bad for GM for a long time.

The irony is that the product will be better than ever, but they will NOT be able to figure out how to make money without the 'gimme' of millions of truck sales at insane margins.

I have every reason to root for GM's success, but I feel very strongly that this particular line-up of executives on the financial/corporate governance side has been an abject failure. Fritz is clearly not up to the task, and Wagonner has presided (over his career) over record market share losses, miserable quality (for a majority of his years at GM) and the World's Largest Company being brought to its knees.

What more do you have to be responsible for (or witness to) to get fired over at the Tubes?

The heavy lifting required to figure out how to make profits in the New World means new blood is needed.

Edited November 10, 2007 by enzl

[Flybrian]

"The media" doesn't have to try toooooo hard to "spin" anything when there's a THIRTY NINE BILLION DOLLAR LOSS...?

$39,000,000,000.00

:AH-HA_wink:

Its an accounting transaction. You wish Chrysler was worth $39B.

[hyperv6]

Here is a story that better explaines this and shows this is not the sky falling. Autoblog contacted a accountant and got the facts on this vs the press. Here is a fact filled explanation By Manuel Johnson, former Chairman of the Financial Accounting Standards Board FASB.

GM's announcement of a $38.6 billion loss yesterday generated quite a bit of shock and many questions. The explanation of "accounting adjustments" didn't sit well with those of us who don't study tax laws for a living, so we decided to pull out our Rolodex and call up someone who could give us a quick lesson in accounting standards. Fortunately, we had the number for Manuel Johnson, former chairman of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB).

Mr. Johnson explained to us that U.S. tax law allows a corporation that suffers net losses to carry forward the total loss balance into future years in order to use the negative numbers as offsets against future profits. The result is that future taxes are lower because the corporation is taxed only on the profits minus the forwarded loss. Meanwhile, the total losses that are carried forward are treated as assets on the balance sheet. That is where GM gets its total of $38.6 billion; it is the automaker's cumulative loss total.

In particular, Mr. Johnson had this to say for the reasoning behind GM's surprising book report:

The FASB has decided to toughen the criteria for asset valuations on the balance sheet of corporations. Adjustments are required for assets that don't meet the tougher test by first quarter of 2008. This is a one time adjustment and it could be reduced in the future if it looks like GM will be more profitable.

It looks like GM chose the 3rd quarter of 2007 to make the necessary adjustments in its books to match the new rules put forth by the FASB. That is why the $38.6 billion reported number is just a formality and not actual cash. Perhaps we might see a few more corporations follow in the footsteps of GM by posting record losses in coming months, as well.

Just posted this so the facts would get in the way.

Edited November 10, 2007 by hyperv6

[enzl]

Here is a story that better explaines this and shows this is not the sky falling. Autoblog contacted a accountant and got the facts on this vs the press. Here is a fact filled explanation By Manuel Johnson, former Chairman of the Financial Accounting Standards Board FASB.

GM's announcement of a $38.6 billion loss yesterday generated quite a bit of shock and many questions. The explanation of "accounting adjustments" didn't sit well with those of us who don't study tax laws for a living, so we decided to pull out our Rolodex and call up someone who could give us a quick lesson in accounting standards. Fortunately, we had the number for Manuel Johnson, former chairman of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB).

Mr. Johnson explained to us that U.S. tax law allows a corporation that suffers net losses to carry forward the total loss balance into future years in order to use the negative numbers as offsets against future profits. The result is that future taxes are lower because the corporation is taxed only on the profits minus the forwarded loss. Meanwhile, the total losses that are carried forward are treated as assets on the balance sheet. That is where GM gets its total of $38.6 billion; it is the automaker's cumulative loss total.

In particular, Mr. Johnson had this to say for the reasoning behind GM's surprising book report:

The FASB has decided to toughen the criteria for asset valuations on the balance sheet of corporations. Adjustments are required for assets that don't meet the tougher test by first quarter of 2008. This is a one time adjustment and it could be reduced in the future if it looks like GM will be more profitable.

It looks like GM chose the 3rd quarter of 2007 to make the necessary adjustments in its books to match the new rules put forth by the FASB. That is why the $38.6 billion reported number is just a formality and not actual cash. Perhaps we might see a few more corporations follow in the footsteps of GM by posting record losses in coming months, as well.

Just posted this so the facts would get in the way.

All true.

But don't forget, you're still talking about future earnings being discounted...more to the point is that the overall automotive operations are not really making money, that 's the problem.

You can't pay for development, VEBA, buyouts and ongoing operations if you aren't making $ making cars. Most of the new UAW savings don't take place until '10!

That's what management can be blamed for.

[ZL-1]

Here is a story that better explaines this and shows this is not the sky falling. Autoblog contacted a accountant and got the facts on this vs the press. Here is a fact filled explanation By Manuel Johnson, former Chairman of the Financial Accounting Standards Board FASB.

GM's announcement of a $38.6 billion loss yesterday generated quite a bit of shock and many questions. The explanation of "accounting adjustments" didn't sit well with those of us who don't study tax laws for a living, so we decided to pull out our Rolodex and call up someone who could give us a quick lesson in accounting standards. Fortunately, we had the number for Manuel Johnson, former chairman of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB).

Mr. Johnson explained to us that U.S. tax law allows a corporation that suffers net losses to carry forward the total loss balance into future years in order to use the negative numbers as offsets against future profits. The result is that future taxes are lower because the corporation is taxed only on the profits minus the forwarded loss. Meanwhile, the total losses that are carried forward are treated as assets on the balance sheet. That is where GM gets its total of $38.6 billion; it is the automaker's cumulative loss total.

In particular, Mr. Johnson had this to say for the reasoning behind GM's surprising book report:

The FASB has decided to toughen the criteria for asset valuations on the balance sheet of corporations. Adjustments are required for assets that don't meet the tougher test by first quarter of 2008. This is a one time adjustment and it could be reduced in the future if it looks like GM will be more profitable.

It looks like GM chose the 3rd quarter of 2007 to make the necessary adjustments in its books to match the new rules put forth by the FASB. That is why the $38.6 billion reported number is just a formality and not actual cash. Perhaps we might see a few more corporations follow in the footsteps of GM by posting record losses in coming months, as well.

Just posted this so the facts would get in the way.

So... Can I reach the conclusion that, according, to US tax laws and accounting rules, this write off can be reversed at any time? If so you guys in the US have very friendly tax laws! Over here if a year's carryforward is not used in the next 6 years it goes bye-bye!

Edited November 10, 2007 by ZL-1

[enzl]

Here is a story that better explaines this and shows this is not the sky falling. Autoblog contacted a accountant and got the facts on this vs the press. Here is a fact filled explanation By Manuel Johnson, former Chairman of the Financial Accounting Standards Board FASB.

GM's announcement of a $38.6 billion loss yesterday generated quite a bit of shock and many questions. The explanation of "accounting adjustments" didn't sit well with those of us who don't study tax laws for a living, so we decided to pull out our Rolodex and call up someone who could give us a quick lesson in accounting standards. Fortunately, we had the number for Manuel Johnson, former chairman of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB).

Mr. Johnson explained to us that U.S. tax law allows a corporation that suffers net losses to carry forward the total loss balance into future years in order to use the negative numbers as offsets against future profits. The result is that future taxes are lower because the corporation is taxed only on the profits minus the forwarded loss. Meanwhile, the total losses that are carried forward are treated as assets on the balance sheet. That is where GM gets its total of $38.6 billion; it is the automaker's cumulative loss total.

In particular, Mr. Johnson had this to say for the reasoning behind GM's surprising book report:

The FASB has decided to toughen the criteria for asset valuations on the balance sheet of corporations. Adjustments are required for assets that don't meet the tougher test by first quarter of 2008. This is a one time adjustment and it could be reduced in the future if it looks like GM will be more profitable.

It looks like GM chose the 3rd quarter of 2007 to make the necessary adjustments in its books to match the new rules put forth by the FASB. That is why the $38.6 billion reported number is just a formality and not actual cash. Perhaps we might see a few more corporations follow in the footsteps of GM by posting record losses in coming months, as well.

Just posted this so the facts would get in the way.

All true.

But don't forget, you're still talking about future earnings being discounted...more to the point is that the overall automotive operations are not really making money, that 's the problem.

You can't pay for development, VEBA, buyouts and ongoing operations if you aren't making $ making cars. Most of the new UAW savings don't take place until '10!

That's what management can be blamed for.

[haypops]

more to the point is that the overall automotive operations are not really making money, that 's the problem.

Is that really true?

from post #25

Mortgage-related losses at GM’s partly owned finance unit overwhelmed auto sales that were the highest ever.

[ellives]

Still feels like more twisting of figures so you don't really know what's going on over there. Same issues that got Enron and Worldcom and all those others into trouble. If the bean counters would stop the BS with the numbers, we the stockholders and consumers could have a real idea of what's going on within these public corporations. This is part of the reason stocks will tumbled at the very hint of negative directional information on a company's results... because every investor knows, corporations will hide things as long as they can in the bs of their public statements.

[enzl]

Is that really true?

from post #25

If you look at the income vs. profitability, then it absolutely is true.

As we know, record income only reflects volume, not profitability. I believe they made less than 1% on automotive operations globally!...

Even excluding one-time items, GM had a 2007 third-quarter adjusted net loss of 1.6 billion dollars, or 2.80 dollars per share, with the automaker's results hurt by troubles at GMAC, its former finance arm in which it still holds a stake.

That loss came amid record automotive revenue of 43.1 billion dollars and an operating profit of 122 million dollars in global automotive operations.

Henderson said that further "adjustments" could be made if economic conditions or GM's results worsen.

"We need to base the business on the reality of today," he said. "We like our (market) penetration, we like what we're doing with our brands, but we've got to get the job done on both the revenue and the cost side."

Henderson added that while some near-term cost improvements could be expected out of its landmark new labor contract, many of the benefits will not be reaped until 2010 and that GM must spend money now to pay for those eventual savings.

Meanwhile, GM's North America unit posted a loss from continuing operations of 247 million dollars in the July-September period.

"We continue to implement the key elements of our North America turnaround strategy, and these initiatives are driving steady improvement in our financial results, despite challenging North America market conditions," said Rick Wagoner, the company's chairman and chief executive.

Wagoner continued: "In addition, we are very encouraged by our performance in emerging markets. Our record third quarter global sales are strong evidence that our commitment to great cars and trucks is being embraced by consumers around the globe."

The loss comes in a period of turmoil for the US auto industry, which is struggling against foreign rivals with a lower cost structure.

Both GM and Ford have been undergoing painful restructuring, and Chrysler was spun off to private equity investors after losses incurred at its German parent.

GM has also suffered from the real-estate slump, which has dented results at the GMAC unit.

The latest results also include a gain of 3.5 billion dollars from Allison.....

GOOGLE NEWS

Edited November 10, 2007 by enzl

[Mr.Krinkle]

Thats a lot of underlining.

[CMG]

Its an accounting transaction. You wish Chrysler was worth $39B.

LOL

Does that make any sense?

I would rather a car company ( ANY car company) have a loss of ZERO dollars, or a "worth" of ZERO dollars, than a $39,000,000,000 third quarter loss.

hahaha

Think about it...

:AH-HA_wink:

[Flybrian]

Read the explanantion before making ill-informed statements.

[ellives]

LOL

Does that make any sense?

I would rather a car company ( ANY car company) have a loss of ZERO dollars, or a "worth" of ZERO dollars, than a $39,000,000,000 third quarter loss.

hahaha

Think about it...

:AH-HA_wink:

Let's go over the concepts.... once again.... "worth" and "profit and loss" are two different things. Typically in these kinds of discussions, "worth" is the market perception of the company value and is calculated very easily by using the stock price. The "worth" is calculated as the total number of shares outstanding multiplied by the stock price. As we all hopefully know, stock value is not a direct indication of the value of the assets the company owns, such as plants and equipment. Stock price is more likely an expectation of future earnings.

The $39B loss is essentially a write down of the value of assets. Now we as stockholders have to decide whether this write down actually improves or degrades the opportunity for future earnings, which then translates to an increase or decrease in the stock value.

[ZL-1]

Let's go over the concepts.... once again.... "worth" and "profit and loss" are two different things. Typically in these kinds of discussions, "worth" is the market perception of the company value and is calculated very easily by using the stock price. The "worth" is calculated as the total number of shares outstanding multiplied by the stock price. As we all hopefully know, stock value is not a direct indication of the value of the assets the company owns, such as plants and equipment. Stock price is more likely an expectation of future earnings.

Just a small detail: Valuation theory says value is the present value of future expected cash flows, in efficient markets. One can always think in terms of earnings and adjust non-cash items to arrive at expected cash flow figures, but I'm feeling picky today

The $39B loss is essentially a write down of the value of assets. Now we as stockholders have to decide whether this write down actually improves or degrades the opportunity for future earnings, which then translates to an increase or decrease in the stock value.

IMO it reduces the value of the company. If the writeoff isn't reversed (or cannot be reversed), when future profits do happen the carryovers will not be usable, leading to higher corporate tax charges and subsequent payments, which reduces future expected cash flows, which reduces value. Edited November 11, 2007 by ZL-1

[CMG]

Read the explanantion before making ill-informed statements.

I did.

I was responding to YOUR ill-informed statements.

Pointing fingers at other car manufacturers that had NOTHING to do with the thread....

[CMG]

Read the explanantion before making ill-informed statements.

You wish Chrysler was worth $39B.

Attack the POST, not the POSTER.

:AH-HA_wink:

I never posted I wished Chrysler was worth ANY "amount", I could care less what Chrysler- or whoever owns it at the time- is worth, and could care less if they are worth $39 or 39 trillion.

You are "ill informed"....

:AH-HA_wink:

Now....

Let's get back on topic, and stop the insults!

[haypops]

a mildly negative view of the $39 Billon loss

[ellives]

I thought this was a pretty good explanation:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21697375/