thegriffon

And if you sell now all you do is lock in your losses. Stocks are for growth, bonds are for income. When you are nearing retirement you sell your stocks to lock in your gains and buy bonds, mostly T-bills, to protect your gains and secure an income. If you haven't done that already it's too late—you've already made your losses on paper, selling only makes them real. The best you can do (and in this climate it might make sense) is to transfer from stocks to even more depressed property, and by property I mean residential mortgages. A good investment firm should now be looking for investors to buy mortgages at discounted prices reflecting current property values and risk, and renegotiating terms to ensure a steady income for clients and prevent the need for foreclosures to recover the investment.

Now is not the time to sell if you are still in stocks. You'll just have to ride it out until they recover (and they will). The decline is really only a problem for people who have stayed in stocks too long when they should be in fixed-income securities, or who should be looking swapping to them to lock in past gains. If you are in fixed income securities already, fine, if not you'll just have to hold on to your stocks for a few more years before selling.

FOG, you've seen globalization screwed up by one-sided currency policies favoring importers to the US to keep prices low at the expense of employment, while markets for US producers were largely closed. Coca-Cola, P&G, Mars etc. got around it by selling brand name goods that could not be copied. They actively targeted foreign markets and kept exporting, something most US-based business did not do. A Chinese company cannot make a Mars bar. A Chinese company cannot make Coke. They can try and copy it, but Coke will barely notice any change in it's sales and virtually no pressure on its prices. Louis Vuitton can charge whatever they like, and in fact the more they charge the more people will desire their products. Cadillac used to be like that and should be again. So what if only a handful of people could afford to buy an Eldorado Biarritz? It just made people willing to pay so much more for other Cadillacs. In the '50s and '60s people who are now buying BMWs and Mercedes and Cadillacs were aspiring to one day own a Buick. Buicks were for successful professionals—today's plastic surgeons, top ad agency executives, and former merchant bankers clearing their desks and taking the boxes to waiting limos. GM needs to remember that and start jacking up the prices. A lot.

What dumbass thought that with incomes increasing by 1% and home prices increasing 6%, that lending people more money was going to make housing more accessible? With figures like that of course we'd soon reach a point where people could not pay back their mortgages. The other dumbass policy was the strong dollar, supported by the Bush administration and every other US government for at least 30 years in order to keep prices low and consumers happy. Bread and circuses, bread and circuses. What did it do? drive manufacturing out of America, put millions of people out of work and even now, prevent business from capitalizing on a short lived correction in the US dollar. Stop what you are doing it doesn't work! Create a new, purely notional, transactional currency for foreign exchange transactions, make currency speculation a crime, fix the $US dollar at 100 yen, 1$CA etc., and let businesses adjust to the new status quo. Trade requires stable currencies, and predictable exchange rates. For capital planning retailers and manufacturers need to know how much a transaction is going to cost. They need to know they will be able to sell their product at a profit for the next 5 years, not just the next 6 months. Lenders need to see that a US-based company can be price competitive and indeed the smart option, for the long term. Third point. We live ina global economy with global markets for food and raw materials. You cannot control inflation by raising interest rates. It does not work when demand and inflation is driven by overseas markets not subject to your local interest rates. Wake up! You just make things worse. High commodity prices will correct themselves by dampening demand as we've seen with oil. Guess what? Inflation caused by oil has fallen, even though interest rates have been cut. Imagine that? You can cut interest rates, free up credit and inflation will still fall. Wow! It's a new age people. Time the central banks realized it. PS fuel pricies in Australia have remained intolerably high even though oil has fallen from over $US100 a barrel to less than $US80. But surprise surprise two (just two) gas stations in one area of Sydney have cut prices by more than 30% in the last few days. Seems the price we pay for fuel has nothing to do with oil prices after all. Isn't time governments did everything they can to undermine the power fuel retailers and refiners by supporting alternative fuel choices for consumers? Allow consumers the chance to make a choice and fill up with E85 when gasoline retailers don't respond to the drop in demand.

A perfect example noted by the NYT in relation to Fannie Mae: The Reckoning: Pressured to take more risks, Fannie Mae reached tipping point Hey Mr Obama, whose policies got us all into this mess?

Chrysler Jeep and Dodge do have a presence outside North America in both RHD and LHD markets, and unlike other companies building cars in NA has an extensive export program, their only source of growth. The Caravan and Voyager in particular are popular worldwide, and although the segment is not as strong elsewhere the Chrysler models have been widely recognized around the world as the most popular or award winning large MPVs. Dodge has also been launched in global markets—I regularly see the Nitro and Caliber and the Chrysler Voyager (formerly an Austrian-built Plymouth with a Chrysler logo but now the Town and Country by another name) has been the best selling minivan in the Austalian market, or near to it, despite its rather high asking price.

The will keep Jeep, sell Dodge trucks to Nissan (who will be reselling them anyway and sharing engines), share the vans, kill the Sprinter, sell Chrysler and the remains of Dodge (perhaps to Renault, perhaps to several parties) sell GEMA etc.. Aspen, Durango, Dakota, Compass, PT Cruiser, Sebring etc. are dead, Although they may find buyers for the Sebring, Compass and PT Cruiser tooling. The Chinese will ask about the engine plants or tooling but won't offer much money, and they may even find a buyer for the Dakota tooling. If I was running Mitsubishi I'd be asking how cheaply I could get the Dodge car and crossover lineup (most of which is already Mitsubishi-based) and the Phoenix V6 program, GAZ and I'd be asking about the 300 to replace the Volga and Chrysler's share in the world engine, PSA and the Chrysler brand's North American operations (they bought almost everything else in the '70s) to sell rebadged Citroens and the Viper platform as a showcase for the V12 turbodiesel (a modern, Peugeot-badged Talbot Lago). If the banks want to engineer a merger they should be looking at combining Isuzu, Navistar, Iveco and GM's North and South American medium truck business (in exchange for cash and Navistar's light diesel operations). That's a much-needed combination offering global reach, immense synergies, a good return and low risk, placing the combined entity (International VEhicle COrp. is an obvious name choice) in a better position v. Volvo and Daimler.

Oh yeah. Too bad these same banks hadn't lent money to Fiat when it was in trouble.

If GM does buy Chrysler, how many days do you think it will take them to offer most of it to other companies? Buy it cheap from Cerberus, sell it for billions to someone else to raise money. They can't just shut down Dodge or Chrysler or the DOJ will ask why they should allow the takeover. Is GM already talking to Renault, the Chinese, Hyundai, Mitsubishi or PSA about who wants what pieces? If Cerberus sells Chrysler to anyone but Great Wall and Chery, you can bet several programs will immediately face the ax—no Chinese small cars, no Chinese pickup, no new midsize platform (everyone except Mitsubishi already has one). The new V6 program will be dead unless Mitsubishi or PSA voice an interest, probably unlikely. GM and Renault will want to cash out of GEMA and the world engine program, PSA won't be interested either since they are talking to BMW. PSA could replace almost the entire Dodge/Chrysler car lineup with rebadged Peugeots and Citroens (homologating them for the US, though expensive would be cheaper than new models, the network is an asset, and a C5 Airdream even sounds like a Chrysler). GM could split the van business with Renault Nissan, an extension of the current European partnership. Nissan would take Dodge trucks rebadging the Ram, Frontier and Nissan commercial van for both brands. GM would demand that Cerberus fund the full pension and healthcare obligations.

You think the Nitro, CX-7 and Liberty are too big, but include the Torrent? Take a look at how big these trucks really are: B-Segment Seats wheelbase length width height Units mm " mm " mm " mm " Chevrolet Niva 5 2450 96.5 4048 159.4 1770 69.7 1652 65.0 Daihatsu Terios 5 2580 101.6 4055 159.6 1695 66.7 1690 66.5 VW CrossFox 5 2469 97.2 4082 160.7 1689 66.5 1639 64.5 Ford EcoSport 5 2490 98.0 4228 166.5 1734 68.3 1622 63.9 C-Segment Units mm " mm " mm " mm " Honda Element 4 2575 101.4 4300 169.3 1815 71.5 1788 70.4 Nissan Qashqai 5 2630 103.5 4310 169.7 1780 70.1 1610 63.4 Hyundai Tucson 5 2630 103.5 4325 170.3 1795 70.7 1680 66.1 Jeep Compass 5 2635 103.7 4405 173.4 1761 69.3 1632 64.2 Jeep Patriot 5 2635 103.7 4411 173.6 1756 69.1 1637 64.4 Volkswagen Tiguan 5 2604 102.5 4427 174.3 1809 71.2 1683 66.3 Ford Escape 5 2620 103.1 4437 174.7 1806 71.1 1727 68.0 Ford Kuga 5 2690 105.9 4443 174.9 1842 72.5 1677 66.0 Mazda Tribute 5 2620 103.1 4465 175.8 1825 71.9 1760 69.3 Chevrolet HHR 5 2628 103.5 4475 176.2 1757 69.2 1657 65.2 Suzuki Grand Vitara 5 2640 103.9 4475 176.2 1810 71.3 1695 66.7 Jeep Liberty 5 2694 106.1 4493 176.9 1838 72.4 1808 71.2 Units mm " mm " mm " mm " Land Rover LR2 5 2660 104.7 4500 177.2 1910 75.2 1740 68.5 Honda CR-V 5 2620 103.1 4520 178.0 1819 71.6 1680 66.1 Mercedes GLK-Class 5 2755 108.5 4528 178.3 1840 72.4 1689 66.5 Nissan Xterra 5 2700 106.3 4540 178.7 1850 72.8 1813 71.4 Dodge Nitro 5 2763 108.8 4544 178.9 1857 73.1 1776 69.9 Subaru Forester 5 2615 103.0 4560 179.5 1780 70.1 1675 65.9 BMW X3 5 2795 110.0 4565 179.7 1853 73.0 1674 65.9 Kia Sorento 5 2710 106.7 4567 179.8 1863 73.3 1730 68.1 Saturn Vue 5 2707 106.6 4576 180.2 1850 72.8 1704 67.1 Acura RD-X 5 2650 104.3 4590 180.7 1869 73.6 1656 65.2 Toyota RAV4 5-7 2660 104.7 4600 181.1 1815 71.5 1685 66.3 D-segment Seats wheelbase length width height Units mm " mm " mm " mm " Audi Q5 5 2807 110.5 4627 182.2 1880 74.0 1653 65.1 Volvo XC60 5 2774 109.2 4628 182.2 1891 74.4 1672 65.8 Nissan X-Trail (Europe) 5 2630 103.5 4630 182.3 1785 70.3 1685 66.3 Chevrolet Captiva 5-7 2707 106.6 4637 182.6 1849 72.8 1720 67.7 Mitsubishi Outlander 5-7 2670 105.1 4640 182.7 1800 70.9 1680 66.1 Nissan Rogue 5 2690 105.9 4645 182.9 1800 70.9 1658 65.3 Mazda CX-7 5 2750 108.3 4675 184.1 1872 73.7 1645 64.8 Hyundai Santa Fe 5-7 2700 106.3 4675 184.1 1890 74.4 1725 67.9 Units mm " mm " mm " mm " Ford Edge 5 2825 111.2 4717 185.7 1925 75.8 1702 67.0 Lexus RX350 5 2715 106.9 4735 186.4 1845 72.6 1680 66.1 Lincoln MKX 5 2825 111.2 4737 186.5 1925 75.8 1707 67.2 Buick Rendezvous 7 2851 112.2 4738 186.5 1871 73.7 1750 68.9 Jeep Grand Cherokee 5 2781 109.5 4741 186.6 1862 73.3 1720 67.7 Hummer H3 5 2842 111.9 4742 186.7 1898 74.7 1893 74.5 Volkswagen Touareg 5 2855 112.4 4754 187.2 1928 75.9 1726 68.0 Nissan Pathfinder 7 2850 112.2 4765 187.6 1850 72.8 1755 69.1 Saab 94X 5 2810 110.6 4770 187.8 1800 70.9 1680 66.1 Lexus GX470 5-8 2790 109.8 4780 188.2 1880 74.0 1855 73.0 Porsche Cayenne 5 2855 112.4 4782 188.3 1928 75.9 1699 66.9 Toyota Highlander 5-7 2790 109.8 4785 188.4 1910 75.2 1730 68.1 Nissan Murano 5 2825 111.2 4787 188.5 1882 74.1 1702 67.0 Jeep Commander 7 2781 109.5 4787 188.5 1900 74.8 1826 71.9 Mercedes ML-Class 5 2915 114.8 4788 188.5 1911 75.2 1779 70.0 Range Rover Sport 5 2745 108.1 4788 188.5 1928 75.9 1817 71.5 Chevrolet Equinox 5 2857 112.5 4795 188.8 1814 71.4 1703 67.0 Volvo XC90 5-7 2857 112.5 4798 188.9 1898 74.7 1784 70.2 E-segment Seats wheelbase length width height Units mm " mm " mm " mm " Mitsubishi Endeavor 5 2750 108.3 4830 190.2 1870 73.6 1710 67.3 Hyundai Veracruz 7 2805 110.4 4840 190.6 1945 76.6 1750 68.9 Acura MDX 7 2750 108.3 4844 190.7 1994 78.5 1679 66.1 Land Rover LR3 5-7 2885 113.6 4848 190.9 1915 75.4 1891 74.4 Honda Pilot 8 2774 109.2 4849 190.9 1994 78.5 1803 71.0 Ford Explorer America 6 2939 115.7 4851 191.0 - - 1768 69.6 BMW X5 5-7 2933 115.5 4854 191.1 1933 76.1 1765 69.5 Ford Territory 5-7 2842 111.9 4856 191.2 1898 74.7 1714 67.5 Infiniti FX Series 5 2885 113.6 4860 191.3 1928 75.9 1651 65.0 Subaru Tribeca 5-7 2749 108.2 4865 191.5 1878 73.9 1686 66.4 GMC Envoy 5 2869 113.0 4866 191.6 1897 74.7 1826 71.9 Chevrolet Trailblazer 5 2870 113.0 4872 191.8 1897 74.7 1892 74.5 BMW X6 4 2933 115.5 4877 192.0 1983 78.1 1690 66.5 Kia Borrego 7 2895 114.0 4880 192.1 1915 75.4 1810 71.3 Dodge Journey 5-7 2890 113.8 4888 192.4 1835 72.2 1701 67.0 Units mm " mm " mm " mm " Mitsubishi Pajero 7 2780 109.4 4900 192.9 1845 72.6 1850 72.8 Ford Explorer 5-7 2888 113.7 4912 193.4 1872 73.7 1849 72.8 Cadillac SRX 5-7 2957 116.4 4950 194.9 1844 72.6 1722 67.8 Toyota LandCruiser 200 5-8 2850 112.2 4950 194.9 1970 77.6 1880 74.0 Range Rover 5 2880 113.4 4972 195.7 1956 77.0 1863 73.3 Lexus LX570 8 2850 112.2 4990 196.5 1970 77.6 1890 74.4 Suzuki XL-7 6 2857 112.5 4995 196.7 1835 72.2 1750 68.9

Sounds close, production photos should be circulating (authorized or not) this time next year for the sedan, 6-12 mths later for the hatch.

BTW, The European market 100 PS 1.4 L also matches the 100 PS Honda Fit for fuel economy — a combined 41.2 US mpg under the EU test cycle. Toyota's closest rival is not the Yaris, but the new "Urban Cruiser", actually the Scion xD/Toyota ist hatchback with the optional JDM awd system. The 100 PS Toyota gets a brand-new engine with Dual-VVT like the Aveo and beats the Fit and Chevy in economy (46 mpg), but only because it has a 6-speed manual and a start-stop system, both of which you can be sure you pay through the nose for. Yes, GM needs to roll out the new 6-speeds (autos and manuals) to smaller cars and engines.

Could it be that the potential buyer(s specifically asked for Taylor?

Cerberus:"How much money will you give us for Chrysler?" GM:"No, how much money will you give us for Chrysler?"

Ahh, when was the last time a Camry was even mentioned in JD Power as a class leader? Or the Accord for that matter? Neither has placed among the best in class this century,as far as I can remember, and JD Power only gives them 4 stars while most domestics get 5.

AH, but the WTCC+ was a 5-door hatch, and this is the sedan.

The Avensis is a new design on the old architecture. It's still a generation behind the Europeans, but then demand for larger sedans such as the Mondeo and Insignia is limited anyway. The major improvement is the new Valvematic engines, which lose the throttle like BMW's Valvetronic, and add dual cam phasing like all of GM's updated 4-cylinders.

And you wonder why people keep leaving C&G. You people are paranoid. Enough negativity already. This is primarily because of Katrina and Ike etc. Bush's term is up, Cheney didn't even run for president. There is no difference between the candidates on almost any policy except a timetable for withdrawal. Have we heard anything on funding for Amtrak, or commuter transit? No. They both have the same policies, and all they've been doing is saying the other side is lying about it. Energy, healthcare, etc., it's all the same, and very little is different from what you've got already. All they really have to say right now is "You won't cut taxes, I will"

WWII caused increased capital expenditure, 180% employment rates, increasing savings and investment in war bonds and restricted frivolous expenditure. such conditions are not going to happen again even in a war situation. You're in one now, do you think it is helping?

Politicians are between a rock and a hard place here. The crisis was caused by excessively easy credit, in the name of making housing "affordable". Of course what it really did was make it possible for people to pay even more for houses until it got out of control and a) new borrowers could no longer afford the inflated prices and b) existing borrowers could not repay the loans. With foreclosures and losses on bad loans credit started drying up, causing house prices to fall. The more they fell, the more the losses accelerated, so that now with prices within reach people still cannot borrow. People start walking away from mortgages that are worth far more than their properties, and the losses accelerate. Unbelievably right now I am listening to an ad for a lender promising to lend 95% of he property value. Some people never learn I guess. This was not a Bush policy as Obama keeps saying (a blatant lie), it is a global policy encouraged by governments worldwide for the last 20 years or so as a stupid attempt to make housing available to new buyers as prices increased, and to encourage investors using tax incentives to increase the housing supply. Parties of all stripes worldwide have been guilty of the same bad policies for decades, and I notice Obama has never said he will do anything different (except blame Bush). Both candidate's promise to "stabilize" home values is the wrong idea. It was trying to keep house prices from stalling that got us into this mess, and their largely unspecified strategies have not included included anything to solve it. McCain's suggestion of buying and renegotiating mortgages to reflect lower property values is a nice gesture, but not a solution. There is a solution, but it is one that no politician will ever propose, because it will hurt existing homeowners, property investors and landlords who have already paid way to much for their properties, or were counting on a nice profit before the crash in prices; worry new buyers wanting to borrow as much as they can, and cripple the budgets of local governments dependent on property taxes. To avoid the bubble, stabilize prices, and keep housing affordable there is only one solution—strictly regulate what people can borrow, and remove all tax incentives for property investors (property investing is nothing but a giant ponzi scheme which has just blown up in the faces of anyone who came in too late, as it always does—like most scams it deserves to be heavily penalized and regulated). House prices have nothing to do with supply and demand. Demand for housing is just as high or higher as it has ever been, and the supply of new homes is lower than ever as construction collapses. The price falls because people are no longer willing or able to pay excessive prices. Such strict regulation on what people can borrow will never happen, not because it's a bad idea, but because very few voters will appreciate what it does, and most of those that do will won't like it. They want their property values to recover, not be stuck at levels 30–50% below what they are repaying. Mortgage brokers, realtors and bank managers won't like it, not because their profits will be hurt, but because lenders' and brokers' commissions will suffer. Developers won't like it because the capital gains they have enjoyed won't be as high. But it means that new buyers can actually enter the market and buy a nice house without overextending. Bad loans will decline, improving profitability at the expense of revenue. The construction market will recover, even if developers won't enjoy the same profits, enabling builders to raise employment and increase spending on equipment and materials. Rents will decline, allowing people to save more and get into the housing market sooner. Oh and for property investors, oh it sucks to be part of a giant ponzi scheme when it crashes down, doesn't it? I have no sympathy for anyone who pushed up property values beyond the reach of real home buyers and then milked them for higher and higher rents. The greedy bastards and the promoters who encouraged them should go to prison like any other con artist.

Alfa doesn't sell a turbocharged version, that's Saab, Opel and Cadillac. Alfa sells a 3.2 DI version.

No, this is not the upsized Groove. The Orlando is based on the lwb version of the Global Compact Car, towards the high end of the C-segment, and has 7 seats. If anything it will be bigger than its closest rivals sold in the US, the Mazda5 and Rondo. The upsized Groove will be much smaller and have only 5 seats. It should be something like the upcoming, 2nd gen Nissan Cube Cubic, or the original Scion xB (Toyota bB)—a taller, boxier, more van-like lwb derivation of the B-segment Global Small Car architecture. Opel's Meriva, meanwhile, has grown up a lot and will be in between the two in size—similar to the 1st gen Renault Scenic, PT Cruiser and the new C-segment Scion Xb (Corolla Rumion); i.e. a 5-seat C-MPV. The Meriva will technically be Gamma, but not necessarily the same architecture as the Groove and Aveo. The future Gamma-based crossovers will probably share the new Meriva's longer wheelbase, but with longer front and rear overhangs and a more conventional small-SUV profile.

It's not like the next Astra is based off the Cruze, or vice-versa. GME develops the architecture, but because of product cadences, the GM Daewoo-developed Cruze becomes the first car. All the major markets and engineering centers have some input, but GME controls the architecture.

I was under the impression that Kappa had been canned for a unified "sports car" architecture—i.e. a smaller version of the Corvette and not merely a similar but unrelated platform. In any case they can't spend the money on general expenses or standard product development. A minimum improvement in economy is required (25% IIRC)—improving the mileage of the new compact by 9 mpg would qualify (just), expanding dual-mode hybrids might qualify, Volt would qualify, HCCI might qualify, the 4.5 L diesel might qualify, improvements boosting a 32 mpg sedan to 40 mpg would qualify etc.. It is a real and potentially substantial boost to GM's capital budget, but only for certain types of project. Projects such as Ford's unibody, turbo Explorer replacement could certainly qualify, as could plans to switch the large GM trucks to a unibody platform, or building an Avalanche replacement off Lambda. Boosting mileage from 14/18 to 17.5/22.5 or from 15/21 to 18.8/26.3 may be all that is needed. Of course if Cummins, for example, spends the money to fund production of a more efficient diesel for light trucks, then there is no reason they can't sell it to Nissan as well as Chrysler.

Too big, too heavy, too cramped, but damn it looks good. Let's hope with alpha they shrink it back down to a proper pony-car dimension, lose a lot of weight and give it some decent space. I have no doubt they'll keep a V8 or two just for bragging rights, even if you have trouble finding one without slipping the salesman something extra under the table. BTW, GM remembers the COPO :AH-HA_wink: