It Finally Happened....GM Bonds Rated Junk

Can there be a day worse than today for GM car lovers? GM (and Ford) bonds
were rated junk today. What a sad day!

On Thu, 5 May 2005 1951 -0400, "James C. Reeves"
<jcnospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>>Can there be a day worse than today for GM car lovers? GM (and Ford) bonds
>>were rated junk today. What a sad day!
I read somewhere that Kerkorian wanting to buy more GM shares may have
been the trigger for the GM junk rating (feared he might try and
separate the mortgage & loan part of the business from the automaking
side)

"Brad Clarke" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:skbl71pa0kv583hqo3fq507ao5kfg9r0kp@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 5 May 2005 1951 -0400, "James C. Reeves"
> <jcnospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>>Can there be a day worse than today for GM car lovers? GM (and Ford)
>>>bonds
>>>were rated junk today. What a sad day!
> I read somewhere that Kerkorian wanting to buy more GM shares may have
> been the trigger for the GM junk rating (feared he might try and
> separate the mortgage & loan part of the business from the automaking
> side)

I had heard that to. But with only 5% ownership? Must be more to this.

Brad Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, 5 May 2005 1951 -0400, "James C. Reeves"
> <jcnospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Can there be a day worse than today for GM car lovers? GM (and Ford) bonds
>>>were rated junk today. What a sad day!
>
> I read somewhere that Kerkorian wanting to buy more GM shares may have
> been the trigger for the GM junk rating (feared he might try and
> separate the mortgage & loan part of the business from the automaking
> side)

If only that would happen. GM needs its head on straight
and a bit of tough love might just be the ticket.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> Brad Clarke wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 May 2005 1951 -0400, "James C. Reeves"
> > <jcnospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Can there be a day worse than today for GM car lovers? GM (and
Ford) bonds
> >>>were rated junk today. What a sad day!
> >
> > I read somewhere that Kerkorian wanting to buy more GM shares may
have
> > been the trigger for the GM junk rating (feared he might try and
> > separate the mortgage & loan part of the business from the
automaking
> > side)
>
> If only that would happen. GM needs its head on straight
> and a bit of tough love might just be the ticket.

Do you have a stake in GM or just like to gossip about GM?

In article <1115374023.419803.197630@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
no_one_you_know34474@yahoo.com says...
>
>Do you have a stake in GM or just like to gossip about GM?


Do you work at a sewage plant or do you just talk like you work at one?


--
__________________________________________________ _______________
Dennis Smith

-1971 Trans Am - 455 H.O. - M21 4speed - Cameo white/blue stripe-
-1973 Trans Am - 455 - TH400 auto - Buccaneer red-
-1984 Trans Am - 5.0 L - TH700R4 auto - Royal blue/silver aero-
__________________________________________________ _______________

No One You Know wrote:

>>If only that would happen. GM needs its head on straight
>>and a bit of tough love might just be the ticket.
>
>
> Do you have a stake in GM or just like to gossip about GM?

Simple fact of life and business. Every so often you need
to do a garage sale and spring cleaning. Get lean, mean,
and have space again for new ideas. All I see with GM and
Ford is stodgy bland business like usual mentality, and
that's not what I really want to see in a car.

BMW, otoh, they "get it" - their Mini convertable is a sweet
little car to drive. They took an old failing design with
potential and made it inso something great. GM takes Saab
and de-evolves it almost instantly to their oatmeal-esque
mentality.

Ford, well, Ford is Ford. They have huge issues that
run deeper than management and image/new designs.