Inside GM's December Sales

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

Speaking to Bloomberg yesterday, GM Sales Boss Susan Docherty called December’s sales results “very encouraging.” Her argument: heavy fleet sales in December 2008 explain why December 09 results look worse by comparison. But spinning sales results as the product of conscious fleet percentage reductions is just one longstanding GM tradition that Docherty indulged in: talking points touting falling incentives and improved inventory weren’t far behind. None of which is necessarily indicative of a satisfactory performance. In fact, if you dissect the spin, it’s clear that what lies beneath is not nearly as attractive as the PR would have you believe.

Automotive News [sub] buys the fleet sales line hook, line and sinker, running the headline “GM’s December wasn’t as bad as it looked.” Sure, 22 percent fleet is a pretty balanced number, and there’s no doubt that it’s an improvement on the 33 percent of a year ago. But even according to GM’s own numbers, that merely puts the General mid-pack in terms of fleet percentages. According to Docherty’s estimates, Ford sold 35 percent of its vehicles to fleets, Chrysler Group’s fleet percentage was “about half,” Toyota Motor Sales had 10 percent and Hyundai-Kia 22 percent. Those numbers indicate previously unforeseen trouble at Ford and totally predictable trouble at Chrysler, although GM surely wouldn’t want to even compare itself to the disaster going down in Auburn Hills. On the fleet front, GM’s performance can best be described as “adequate.” But reducing fleet deliveries doesn’t necessarily mean an improvement in profits.

The big news going largely unnoticed, is that despite Docherty’s insistence that incentives are down 25 percent, Edmunds.com still estimates GM to have the highest “true cost” of incentives in the business. Still. Sure, GM’s incentives are down by about $340 since November, but at $4,077 per vehicle, GM still outspends the next-biggest incentive addict, Ford, by over $1,000 per vehicle. Even Chrysler is down to about $2,500 per vehicle. December incentive data from Automotive News [sub]’s data center shows incentive offers throughout December on even the new launch products and “core brands” Docherty credits her optimism to. From the Cadillac SRX (up to $2k and 1.9%) to the GMC Terrain and Chevy Equinox (up to $1k and 2.9%), almost every 2010 model has something on the hood that might entice buyers but will definitely cost GM at the bottom line. The exceptions to this are the Buick LaCrosse and Chevy Camaro, which had no cash on the hood in December (although 3.9 percent is available on LaCrosse).

The comparison of incentives on core versus non-core brands is the final piece of the puzzle. Though rumors of $7k dealer incentives on Pontiacs and Saturns sent their search numbers way up, the only official offers were $4k and 0% interest on Saturns, and $2,500-$2,500 incentives on Pontiacs with financing as low as 0 percent. Hummer is helping bump averages up, by offering up to $6k off of H3s, with $5k dealer cash on H2s. There are no consumer incentives on Saabs, but dealers are being offered $7k for each 9-3 and 9-5 sold, or $8k for each 9-7X. Though 2010 models in the core brands typically have consumer cash incentives limited to about $2k per vehicle, 2009 models are stacked deep.

Any 2009-model Cadillac, for example, has a minimum of $3k on the hood (CTS, SRX), and as much as $10k in consumer cash for XLR. The five percent upswing in DTS sales, for example, could be attributed to $2k incentives for a 2010 or $5k incentives for a 2009 model. On the other end of the spectrum, a nearly 50 percent drop in Lucerne sales shows how moribund that vehicle is, considering that incentives for 2009 models reach $4,500. A 2010-model Malibu (sales up 11 percent in December) received $1,500 ($2k for a 2009) compared to a maximum of $750 for a Camry and no incentives for comparable Honda, Hyundai, or Mazda models. Enclave sales climbed over the 5k mark, thanks to as much as $2k off of 2010 models and $2,500 off 09s.

But if there’s a “core brand” that is seriously addicted to incentives, it’s GMC. The alleged profit center brand offered $2k off of every 2010 Yukon and Sierra (up to $4k on 2009s), and rode $1,500 off 2010 Acadias ($2,500 off 2009 Acadias) to a 61.3 percent sales increase. GMC won’t deliver much actual profit if this keeps up, nor will it sustain its higher prices if everything has cash on the hood.

And that, in a nutshell, is why GM is in such trouble sales-wise. The deepest discounts in the industry are, once again, failing to move the needle sales-wise. GM can slice and dice the statistics any way they want, but the reality is that sales are stagnant. Without incentives, who knows what would happen. New products are launching with cash on the hood, old models aren’t moving even with the incentives piled high. Something has got to give.

Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 13 comments
  • SkiD666 SkiD666 on Jan 06, 2010

    So AFIAK no new Pontiac/Saturn/Saab's are being built - so they will eventually disappear from the sales results. Are Hummer's still being built?

    • Roundel Roundel on Jan 06, 2010

      Wasn't there a report of Saab restarting production, or was that just mere rumor?

  • Steven02 Steven02 on Jan 07, 2010

    For GM's core brands, sales were up 2.2% in December. Buick was up 37.4% Caddy up 11.4% Chevy down 1.5% GMC up 4.8% For the record, none core brands were down 55% which is why you see down 6% overall. I don't think this is bad news for GM at all. My guess is most of the fleet reduction was at Chevy. Probably some at Buick as well since the old LaCrosse is gone. Overall, I don't think this is a bad month when you consider what brands are selling the cars and GM still being gov't owned as a negative to the consumer.

  • Redapple2 Love the wheels
  • Redapple2 Good luck to them. They used to make great cars. 510. 240Z, Sentra SE-R. Maxima. Frontier.
  • Joe65688619 Under Ghosn they went through the same short-term bottom-line thinking that GM did in the 80s/90s, and they have not recovered say, to their heyday in the 50s and 60s in terms of market share and innovation. Poor design decisions (a CVT in their front-wheel drive "4-Door Sports Car", model overlap in a poorly performing segment (they never needed the Altima AND the Maxima...what they needed was one vehicle with different drivetrain, including hybrid, to compete with the Accord/Camry, and decontenting their vehicles: My 2012 QX56 (I know, not a Nissan, but the same holds for the Armada) had power rear windows in the cargo area that could vent, a glass hatch on the back door that could be opened separate from the whole liftgate (in such a tall vehicle, kinda essential if you have it in a garage and want to load the trunk without having to open the garage door to make room for the lift gate), a nice driver's side folding armrest, and a few other quality-of-life details absent from my 2018 QX80. In a competitive market this attention to detai is can be the differentiator that sell cars. Now they are caught in the middle of the market, competing more with Hyundai and Kia and selling discounted vehicles near the same price points, but losing money on them. They invested also invested a lot in niche platforms. The Leaf was one of the first full EVs, but never really evolved. They misjudged the market - luxury EVs are selling, small budget models not so much. Variable compression engines offering little in terms of real-world power or tech, let a lot of complexity that is leading to higher failure rates. Aside from the Z and GT-R (low volume models), not much forced induction (whether your a fan or not, look at what Honda did with the CR-V and Acura RDX - same chassis, slap a turbo on it, make it nicer inside, and now you can sell it as a semi-premium brand with higher markup). That said, I do believe they retain the technical and engineering capability to do far better. About time management realized they need to make smarter investments and understand their markets better.
  • Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Off-road fluff on vehicles that should not be off road needs to die.
  • Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Saw this posted on social media; “Just bought a 2023 Tundra with the 14" screen. Let my son borrow it for the afternoon, he connected his phone to listen to his iTunes.The next day my insurance company raised my rates and added my son to my policy. The email said that a private company showed that my son drove the vehicle. He already had his own vehicle that he was insuring.My insurance company demanded he give all his insurance info and some private info for proof. He declined for privacy reasons and my insurance cancelled my policy.These new vehicles with their tech are on condition that we give up our privacy to enter their world. It's not worth it people.”
Next