By on November 3, 2010

I’ll leave the editorializing to others, since my held-close-to-my-vest opinions run against the grain here. But despite the naysayers that said it would never happen, or at a lower price, it did; or will very soon. And at a price that values GM roughly the same or more (depending on final price) in total market capitalization as Ford. The short-version details: GM will sell about $10 billion in common stock and $3.45 billion in preferred shares. The US Treasury will sell 263.5 million shares, which comes out to about $7 billion. That will reduce its stake in GM to 43%. The UAW will sell 71 million shares, and the Canadian and Ontario governments will sell 30.5 million shares. GM press release here. Now the really big question: Are you going to buy? Here’s my answer:I am. But since I don’t want to create a conflict of interest as a journalist; I’ll mail my single share to RF. I’m sure he’ll appreciate it more.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

52 Comments on “GM IPO Filed; $26 To $29 A Share; Are You Going To Buy?...”


  • avatar
    gslippy

    Are you going to buy?
     
    No.  I gave at the office, as noted in my paycheck taxes. [Amended: maybe unknowingly, depending on what my mutual funds do...].
     
    I was one of the naysayers who said it would never happen.  But I still think GM is taking a big risk by going public again at this point, although I don’t spend my life analyzing the details of such deals.  However, when the taxpayers get their money back, I’ll be convinced the bailout was the right move.

    • 0 avatar
      carguy

      “when the taxpayers get their money back, I’ll be convinced the bailout was the right move”
      You will sadly be in the minority.
      Like the S&L bailouts, there is always a lot of vitriol when it happens, but when the money is returned years later it’s no longer a news story and no one ever has to say that they were wrong.

    • 0 avatar
      Robert Schwartz

      +1

    • 0 avatar
      thornmark

      >>However, when the taxpayers get their money back, I’ll be convinced the bailout was the right move.<<
      Anyone who has read the financial press knows that the US will never get all its money back.
      It’s Official: The Government Isn’t Getting Its Money Back Out of GM
      http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/11/its-official-the-government-isnt-getting-its-money-back-out-of-gm/65591/
       
      And, as noted in another article on this site, that doesn’t include the billions of losses they are able to carry forward for tax purposes, something that isn’t allowed in a real bankruptcy.  So if GM really becomes profitable, it pays no taxes for years – something that should be included in the total cost of the GM/UAW bailout.

    • 0 avatar
      Telegraph Road

      Although the taxpayers may never fully recover their money from the GM rescue, the alternative to rescue would certainly been much worse for the taxpayer.  Economic devastation to an entire region isn’t a cheap alternative.

    • 0 avatar
      cdrmike

      I’m amazed at folks who think that these bailouts “saved” anyone.  Those jobs will still go away, the inevitable has just been postponed- at our expense!  Crappy companies will and should fail.  They will be replaced by better managed companies that produce a better product.  Prune the deadwood and the tree gets stronger.

  • avatar
    carguy

    Probably not but that has more to do with the current general volatility in the equities market rather than GM.
     
    Clearly my view on this topic are also against the grain of the TTAC community but, if this goes as planned, it is good news for everyone.

  • avatar
    Dimwit

    Not only no but HELL NO! This thing is a dog, with or without the “old” bits. Ford has turned that ship around and, God and patience willing, will steam off into the horizon a much better company.

    GM hasn’t changed. Sure the deckchairs were shuffled, an amputation or two, but fundamental changes haven’t happened. I would need to see some serious difference between how the new GM does business and how it did it during the last four decades. Can’t see it from here.

    • 0 avatar
      charly

      Ford is strong in declining markets. GM has China. My bet is on China.

    • 0 avatar
      Telegraph Road

      I’m no fan of GM. I work for its competitor in Dearborn.  And at this moment I’m watching my favorite documentary Roger & Me with my son.  But Ford would surely have died too if GM had been allowed to die.
      Ford, for the past year, has been the most profitable auto company on the planet.  But its record 3rd quarter earnings have been eclipsed today by those of GM.  Someone at the RenCen and/or White House deserve some credit.

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      I’d be hesitant to call the US and Europe declining markets.  They are nearly saturated markets, sure, but the US has been the major car market for decades, China has only shown huge growth for a couple of years.  The US and Europe and generally politically stable, China is much less so.  Plus, with all the ballyhoo about how much the Chinese love Buicks, the majority of GM’s Chinese sales are apparently from cut-rate Wuling commercial vans, at least according to what Bertel has said, so who knows how profitbale the venture is.
       
      GM’s US developments are more relevant, and they have turned the ship around a lot further than many people would have predicted by this point.   At the same time, Chrysler finally had heavily revised and new product hitting the lots, and Ford has gotten its main house in order and is about to do the heavy lifting with Lincoln.  The US market will continue to be a dogfight, but with better product coming out from all of the D3, the consumer ultimately wins.

  • avatar
    nonce

    Looks like a certain someone is still butthurt.

  • avatar
    Sinistermisterman

    At first I was pretty certain that come an IPO, I would short GM stock like there was no tomorrow… but with GM’s latest vehicle lineup and the Cruze just around the corner I’m not so sure now. In the interest of taxpayers getting their money back I hope all goes well, but I’m not going to hold my breath.

  • avatar
    Dave M.

    No thanks – that would make me an enabler.  And it didn’t work with my methhead cousin, either.

    I’d rather continue to dump my money into the ones that earned it…..

  • avatar

    no.  GM may do fine, especially with China, although I find what I hear about the Volt to be quite disappointing. My guess is that while it may soar in the long run in China, it’s probably going to slip quite a bit after the IPO, and stay there in the near term.

  • avatar
    AaronH

    In Soviet Amerika, GM buy YOU!

  • avatar
    mike978

    Probably – GM is strong all over the world (US, Europe, Latin America, China, Russia). Ford is a great company and has great product but is nowhere in China or Russia.
     
    I am still amazed at the vitriol that some have for the bailout. They complain about the bailout but then are the sorts to complain about the level of unemployment. Yeah we could have had no bailout, kept $60 billion in the bank and had 1+ million unemployed. The loss of taxes, the unemployment benefit etc would have quickly eaten up most of that $60 billion. Instead with the bailout we have two viable companies who have between them paid back at least $10 billion with a further $7 billion from this IPO. Not bad in less than 2 years.
     
    I expect those complaining about the bailout also though want a strong manufacturing base like Germany or Japan. Being indifferent or actually hostile to large engineering companies like GM is not how they got those much envied industrial bases.

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      The auto bailout is equivalent to safe needle programs for drug addicts, whereby bad choices are rewarded with coddling.  There is nothing to prevent a repeat of GM’s bankruptcy, except that the taxpayers ate the worst parts of the company.  How many GM bailouts should we support?
       
      The 1+ million unemployed would amount to about 1 point of unemployment in the US.  Why should the other 10+ million who actually are unemployed not have received a bailout for their company?
       
      As for being hostile to large engineering companies like GM, I find it ironic that many bailout supporters are hostile to large engineering companies like Exxon-Mobil or Hewlett-Packard, and want to tax them to death because they ‘make too much money’.  The best way to foster a strong engineering base is for the government to take its hands off such businesses.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      The auto bailout is equivalent to safe needle programs for drug addicts, whereby bad choices are rewarded with coddling

      Interesting analogy, since safe injection sites are also proven to help the health and welfare of society as a whole and the druggies in particular, whereas allowing them to contract AIDS, infect others and die horribly most certainly does not help.

    • 0 avatar

      “whereas allowing them to contract AIDS, infect others and die horribly most certainly does not help.”

      I dunno about that “not helping” thing… seems this approach would speed the elimination of an undesirable element of society, one comprised largely of those who made stupid choices (started using/shared needles with/f*cked a druggie.)

      How does keeping those people around benefit society one whit? Sorry, sounds like a win to me… particularly as the cost to taxpayers would amount to essentially zero…

      (The more I think about it, the more I realize the comparison between GM investors and drug addicts is shockingly apt.)

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      @psar: Most illustrations break down at some point; this one is no different.
       
      However, your comment puts into helpful contrast our positions on the bailout.  While I am sympathetic to GM and drug addicts alike (yes, I know some) – and support the occasional helping hand – I also believe in personal responsibility for one’s actions, which translates into suffering for bad choices.
       
      A no-strings-attached bailout which cost us $200k per GM employee is much more than a ‘helping hand’, and it is very telling that no for-profit bank was willing to go for it due to the risk.

    • 0 avatar
      moedaman

      psarhjinian, while I don’t enjoy seeing people dieing horrible deaths, those deaths do serve a purpose. It helps to discourage people from doing stupid things. Bailing out GM/Chrysler while hurting the economy in the short term, would show other companies that nobody is “too big” to fail. And besides, the D3 have done a remarkable job of hurting this countries economy themselves by putting these companies on a collision course with BK. If they were run correctly, the country would never had to sink money into them.

      Don’t you feel that it’s great for US and Canadian taxpayers to “invest” in GM and Chrysler to see things like design and engineering studios being built in China (I know you need to build vehicles in China, but you can design them in Warren using US engineers) or having the company become a division of an Italian company that didn’t put any cash out?

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      I didn’t say that we shouldn’t let them die, but I do think that letting them die in the maw of a recession would have been worse.  The same applies to drug addicts: if they die in a sanitorium, hospital or detox program that’s better (for a given value of “better”) than dying on the street, sharing needles with other people, committing crimes to feed their addiction and causing all sorts of misery for everyone.
       
      This seems to be the point that people who disagree with pro-bailout proponents ignore or skip by: many of us aren’t saying “Keep GM alive at any cost”, but “Don’t let them die at a time when it could cause more harm then good”.  If this were 2005, I’d say fine, sure, put a bullet in GM and Chrysler and be done with it.  I might say the same a year or two from now, God willing.  In 2008 or 2009?  Heck no.
       
      I agree with the points about propping up a lame competitor, about socializing bad business decisions, and about coddling poor behaviour.  I just happen to care a little more about the economy not self-destructing.  I’d like to maintain the status quo until such time as we can afford the change.  I guess that makes me a “conservative”.
       
      Imagine that?

    • 0 avatar
      ClutchCarGo

      “those deaths do serve a purpose. It helps to discourage people from doing stupid things”

      If that were true there would be hardly any addicts left. Human frailty will always have some people making horrible life choices regardless of the examples set before them. gslippy’s analogy was weak to begin with, but reversing the analogy to use free market principles regarding bankruptcy to support speeding addicts to their deaths for the benefit of society is utterly disgusting. I suppose that we should close the rehab centers as well, as a further disincentive to drug use?

      If they would rather die, said Scrooge, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      @psar:
      Your refined position about the timing of the bailouts is news to me, and an interesting one.  I still don’t agree with it, but I did believe all along that you were a ‘save GM at all costs’ guy.  OK.

  • avatar

    I don’t think the government should be selling so many shares in the IPO. Which means that I think the stock will go up as GM’s future becomes less uncertain.

    I won’t be buying any to avoid a conflict of interest. Not that anything I do currently could affect GM’s stock price…

  • avatar
    view2share

    No I will not buy GM stock.
    America lost the edge when it went Euro and Asian designs.  If I want an Accord, which I own, I buy it from Honda.  If GM had rear wheel drive cars with a unique design, for a reasonable price, heck it may be something to consider.  The original CTS was like a breath of fresh air — Body by Fisher, good old days of style returning, but not much has happen since.  The Corvette is good looking, but then again it has always had cool designs. I see a trend though away from the Vette look… well maybe I am too critical.  As I see it, those two cars are GM/American styled and the rest is, well it is the rest — boring.  The new Buicks have that puffy pill look, with the too tall doors and the warmed over Japan style stolen from Euro, let’s have a one world look to them.  Boring!
    Looks wise, the Sky say kinda hit the mark.  Once I sat in it, looked over the car, the top and all, then took a look at the weight, pedal placement, fat A pillars, and such, I did not even have to drive the thing to know it was no Miata.  The latest Miata is just so much better engineered.  Sorry, I can think of nothing GM impressive at this time.
    A used CTS  or STS may be a good GM buy, or perhaps a C5 Vette.

  • avatar
    LALoser

    Yes, I plan to buy. It can go with TTM I own in this segment.
    ….I wonder if the government has got the money back for developing the internet…..

    • 0 avatar
      view2share

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hIQjrMHTv4
      History of internet is interesting
      So you own Tata.  Went to their site and do not see Jaguar listed there.
      Thought they bought the company.  I have seen the new Jag — long live the real Jag,
      I would be buying used, as in XJ6 or 8 and not this new look.  Sorry, just another car now.
       

    • 0 avatar
      LALoser

      Yeah, Tata has Jag/LR, but they will end up being a dog marque in future I think. I bought Tata for the heavy trucks and buses….not very sexy, but I work in an industry in Asia that works with mining, construction, etc, and I think Tata is in a good position to grow. They also make that nasty Nano, good for third-world death trap transportation, but a non-starter here. Tata industries as a whole is a well run group, from automotive to engineering and consulting…..but I have been wrong before….

  • avatar
    geozinger

    Yes, as soon as I can figure out who the hell to call at the 401K place. They changed owners twice in the last three years. Worse than the car companies.

  • avatar
    John Horner

    I’m not sure, but I just might. Probably I will wait several months to see how the shares sort out on the open market.
    For those who are dead set against the government being involved in anything, I hope you don’t own shares in any railroad, any bank or any lumber company for just a few examples. There probably isn’t a bank in the country right now which would have staid in business over these past several years were in not for the Federal Deposit Insurance system and other ways the government is deeply enmeshed with the banks. A run on the banks would have brought most, if not all, of them down. The railroad companies all reaped windfalls when the government gave them the land and resources upon that land with which to build the transcontinental rail system. The big lumber companies likewise made their fortunes primarily by harvesting trees from either previously public or still public lands.
    Like it or not, government is part of any functioning society.

    • 0 avatar

      John,
      “Rabbi Chanina deputy of the Kohanim said ‘Pray for the welfare of the government. If it were not for the fear of the government, each man would eat his neighbor alive!’” – Pirke Avot 3:2
      That being said, the questions is how large a part government will play in any particular society. It seems to me that the American system calls for as limited a government as necessary because beyond the minimalist functions of gov’t, expanding government usually comes at the cost of less freedom and liberty.
      I think that on election day, the American people pretty conclusively agreed with the idea that government has gotten out of control. It both pokes its nose into every facet of life ever increasing its control, while at the same time turgid bureaucracy and unaccountable and entitled public employees (busy bribing politicians with campaign money to keep hiring more public employees) means that no matterwhat programs the statists enact, nothing will really improve, just the cost of government will go up.
      Ever seen the movie Brazil?

      As far as the bailout is concerned and GM’s IPO, I’m a free market guy but I didn’t want to see one of the last parts of America’s manufacturing sector gutted. There’s a reason why Alan Mullaly was up there on Capitol Hill when the other 2 of the Big 3 went with their hand out. Toyota was also concerned. The threat to the supply chain was real.
      So I favored some kind of loan program and wanted Congress to do something in late ’08. Sen. Corker tried but Dick Shelby was an ass. So they kicked the can down the road. The Obama transition team refused to work with the outgoing Bush administration, preferring to craft it’s own plan.
      I’m not happy at all with how the bailout was structured and think the Obama administration ran roughshod through well established standards involving senior creditors and bankruptcy so that their buddies in the UAW would come out without any real haircut.
      While they needed the money and the political protection to jettison the parts of “old GM” that were not viable, I haven’t spoken to a single person at GM that is at all comfortable with the US and Canadian governments owning parts of their business. They want the other 43% that the US gov’t owns divested ASAP. They feel like they’re under a microscope with every move and hate being called Government Motors.
      I don’t think that Rattner and his team did anything special. Actually if you read his book, neither does he. While the circumstances were extraordinary he really regarded it as just another restructuring, only with added frisson of politics. Just about everything that was done in the bankruptcy and restructuring were things advocated by Farago and others here on TTAC as well as guys like Pete DeLorenzo and others.
      So it won’t surprise me if the bailout is ultimately a success (i.e. the gov’t gets at least 90%+ of the $60 billion or so back, and GM is a viable company) but I don’t necessarily agree with the way they’ll get there.
      With the Republicans surging, businesses may start investing and hiring again. A lot of companies have been treading water because of uncertainties about increased regulations and costs. Ironically that may help Obama in ’12.
      I still want to know who owns the Pontiac brand, GM or Motors Liquidation.
      As for the IPO, I can’t afford to buy it and probably wouldn’t if I could. I did tell folks to buy FoMoCo when it was ~$2/share.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      With the Republicans surging, businesses may start investing and hiring again. A lot of companies have been treading water because of uncertainties about increased regulations and costs. Ironically that may help Obama in ’12.

      I will agree with everything save this (ok, and the bankruptcy bit, but that horse as been beaten into burger).  Businesses are not investing not because of fear of regulation, but out of the impetus to hoard cash.  No one is sure we aren’t going to see another credit lockup, and no one wants to be caught without operating capital.

    • 0 avatar
      MikeAR

      Actually Ronnie, I’m afraid that you’re wrong about the the econmy picking up after the election. Probably the Fed will see to it that things get worse. The QEII announced yesterday if the first step to monetizing our debt and will pretty much inevitably lead to a bout of hyperinflation. It may not last long, I hope, but it will put us into another recession or actually prolang the one we are in now. The same cast of idiots and collectivists are still in charge and will be there until the elections in 2012 at least. Only after there is a complet turnover can structural changes be made that will help the economy.

    • 0 avatar
      ClutchCarGo

      “I think that on election day, the American people pretty conclusively agreed with the idea that government has gotten out of control.”

      I have to disagree you on this point. First, keep in mind that while voters removed a large number of elected officials this week, not all of the elections were landslide victories and most of the incumbents kept their jobs. While a majority of voters made a stmt for change, it’s not all that conclusive. Secondly, most exit polling that I’ve heard (which is admittedly pretty anecdotal) had the dissatisfied voters expressing unhappiness with the ineffectiveness of the incumbents. This isn’t a concern that govt has gotten out of control, but rather a concern that govt is ineffectual. These are very different things, and it will interesting to see whether the new govt players will recognize that difference.

    • 0 avatar

      MikeAR,
       
      It’s not just businesses that are sitting on cash. While American businesses are sitting on about $2 trillion in cash, I heard today that American consumers are sitting on about $8 trillion. To be honest, it’s not a bad thing if Americans increase their savings rate and decrease their debt, but in general nobody wants to spend much money on hiring and purchases because they’re uncertain about the future. People have lost equity in their homes, their investments took a hit when Wall Street melted down, lots of GM and Chrysler bond holders took very short haircuts. So hoarding cash makes sense.
      Also, the legislation enacted over the past two years is viewed by many companies as driving up the cost of labor and other operations, so they’re standing pat, afraid of additional government mandated costs to come.
      I’ll give one example:
      The health care legislation mandates restaurants with 20 stores or more to provide nutritional information for everything on the menu. That means increased costs for preparing the data (and with a pizza shop, that’s a lot of permutations of toppings) along with printing and signs. One small pizza chain in the Twin Cities area with 19 stores estimated their total costs would be over $200,000. So the cost of adding a 20th shop  just increased by nearly a quarter of  a million dollars. That shop won’t be built, the equipment won’t be purchased, and additional employees won’t be hired.
       
      That’s what you get when you’re governed by the bar and the faculty lounge.
       
      From the perspective of someone who runs a non-essential business, things are picking up slowly but people are still watching their money very carefully.

  • avatar
    Stingray

    I should have bought Ford stock last year when it was 1$. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
     
    I should be buying some of this stock now.
     
    Currency control sucks.
     
     

  • avatar
    porschespeed

    The inevitable end of the GM IPO, is, well, inevitable.
     
    SAIC, or Geely, or whomever The Party annoints will be the ultimate owner/controlling shareholder of GM.
     
    It will be incremental at first as to avoid the blowback. But in the end, the ChiComms will ultimately own/control GM.
     
     
     
     

  • avatar
    william442

    No. Yesterday I discussed the purchase of a Buick Regal Turbo with a Buick guy, not a sales person. He said think February for delivery, and mumbled something about production problems. The General hasn’t changed a bit.

    • 0 avatar
      mikey

      william442 ……Would you rather that GM rushed the Buick Regal Turbo into production?

      A little inside info. Every car maker in the world uses the same highly automated equipment. No one, be it Honda, VW or the latest flavour of the month,..Hyundai/Kia can flick a switch and a new model comes off the line.

  • avatar
    stones

    Seems like a lot of death to america people in this crowd. Don’t worry once the chinese take over and start breeding with your women america will no longer exist.

  • avatar
    Sanchez

    No, but not necessarily because of the fact that it’s GM. Nearly all IPO’s go down in value within a short time from their opening price (even good ones) and many take years to get back to where they were, assuming they didn’t occur during when IPO’s are generally hot. If that happens, they often never make it back up to the opening price. IPO’s usually shoot up a bit, move around and then drop. Nearly everyone purchasing on the secondary market loses money buying IPO’s. It is only the primary market buyers that make money on a lot of IPO’s. I don’t have the stomach for constantly shifting my investments, so I like to buy and hold most stocks I own. This makes IPO’s bad in general and GM particularly risky given their current state.

  • avatar
    jpcavanaugh

    No.  From where I sit (admittedly on the outside) GM is the worst mangaged company of the D3.  Ford under Mulally is the best, and this has been proven by Ford’s performance over the last two years, both product and financial.  Chrysler under Marchionne seems to me to be pretty well run right now.  New product looks good, and the guy in charge of the turnaround has significant auto experience.  There have also been seismic changes in the way that the company is structured and operates.
    GM, on the other hand, still looks to me like GM.  And this is not a good thing.  Yes, some big problems have been fixed.  Yes, there is a new guy (an outside guy) at the helm.  Okay, a second new guy after the first choice quit.  But where are the scores of new outside people that have been brought in to change the culture.  And, the new boss has no significant experience in heavy manufacturing.  Product?  Like him or not, Bob Lutz initiated a huge change in GM’s product portfolio, mostly successfully.  Lutz is gone.  Did he change culture in product planning enough for it to stick?  Good question.  In short, there were too many organizational problems and too many people schooled in the old organization.  Frankly, I hope I am wrong, but I have not yet seen enough to convince me of a permanent change in the company’s fortunes.

  • avatar
    fiestajunky

    A dispassionate look as an investor:
     
    GM still has lots of structural problems. It still has a UAW workforce that has (and will use) the power to stop production when provoked. GM’s pension is still not fully funded and isn’t going away any time soon. The company still doesn’t “get it” when it comes to irrational , stupid business decisions ( a $40K Volt ? Give me a break.) Management is still the sclerotic ,overfed mass that drove them over the cliff.Overseas looks good, BUT, the Chinese are calling the shots in their own country,when all is said and done. They could expropriate what GM owns whenever they want.Europe is a train wreck.
    The case for investing in GM really hinges on catching an upswing in the american economy. If the U.S. comes roaring back,GM’s baot will rise too.If we have an extended period of 10% unemplyment,times will be tough for everybody,especially GM.
    A passionate view as a taxpayer:
    One thing that the era of bailouts has taught us: The next one is always an order of magnitude bigger than the last one. GM now knows that as long as there is a U.S. government,they will not be allowed to join Studebaker/Packard/Willys /Nash /Hudson in the auto graveyard. That means that problems will be hidden,denied,obfuscated and generally swept uder the rug until the problem is so big that only the taxpayers can fix it. This is “moral hazard ” and GM has steaming buckets of it.
     
    Stay away. There are other,better car companies out there.

  • avatar
    william442

    Mikey: I believe the Opel Insignia has been in production for some time, so what’s to rush.  They use turbos also.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      It’s possible that GM is constraining supply of federalized Insignias/Regals shipped from Europe because of the weak dollar.  It’s also possible that they’re dogging it on tooling up Oshawa to produce domestic Regals, albeit for no reason I can figure.
       
      Or it’s possible that the “Buick guy” was spinning a yarn and really has no idea.

  • avatar
    william442

    “p” Good point about the dollar.

  • avatar
    mikey

    @william442….As I understand it….Opel Europe can’t produce and ship enough vehicles to meet North American demand. Oshawa has just added another shift on the Flex/ Camaro  line to run Buick Regal, and also Camaro convertible.

    IMHO I can’t see GM risking a shaky launch,at this time. Contrary to popular belief,GM is learning from past mistakes.

  • avatar
    Mark MacInnis

    Sell short.  The IPO intial price of $26 to $29 will fall to HALF that by year-end….


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States