Red GM's S-1 Filing Here

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

GM has filed its S-1 paperwork with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Read the entire document here.

Join the conversation
  • Buickman Buickman on Aug 18, 2010

    very first thing I see is "Deloitte and Touche". that alone tells me to stay far away...this firm has audited GM for over seventy consecutive years. during the reign of Red Ink Rick we had "material weaknesses" disclosed in the financials year after year. there is no arms' length in that relationship.

    • See 2 previous
    • Psarhjinian Psarhjinian on Aug 18, 2010

      To be fair to Toilet, Douche and Tomato (as we called it) they're no better or worse than Andersen was and E&Y, KPMG or PWC are. It's an industry that suffers an inherent ethical conflict, and for whom the incentive to improve isn't really an incentive at all. The first one to break ranks and really crack down would bleed engagements like crazy to the other three. As such, you have to treat the results of their work in relative terms, not as absolutes.

  • Robert Schwartz Robert Schwartz on Aug 18, 2010

    Sorry, I don't read prospectuses for less than $400/hr. Besides, I have to do the dishes.

  • Segfault Segfault on Aug 18, 2010

    tl;dr but did it mention the billions they stole from the US taxpayers?

    • See 1 previous
    • Segfault Segfault on Aug 18, 2010

      jjster6, It wasn't given to them, part of the failout package was a "loan." And where I come from, taking out a loan that you know you can't afford to pay back in full is no different from stealing. I don't care what GM is legally obligated to do at this point. They're morally obligated to make the Treasury whole.

  • SCE to AUX SCE to AUX on Aug 18, 2010

    "For example, we have announced that we intend to produce by November 2010 the Chevrolet Volt, an electric car, which requires battery technology that has not yet proven to be commercially viable. There can be no assurance that these advances will occur in a timely or feasible way, that the funds that we have budgeted for these purposes will be adequate, or that we will be able to establish our right to these technologies. However, our competitors and others are pursuing similar technologies and other competing technologies, in some cases with more money available, and there can be no assurance that they will not acquire similar or superior technologies sooner than we do or on an exclusive basis or at a significant price advantage." These may be stock weasel words, but it amounts to another admission by GM that the Volt may always be a money-loser. This doesn't seem like the winning strategy of a company determined to become profitable. The Volt's completion is simply the result of government mandate, empowered by its ownership.

    • See 2 previous
    • SCE to AUX SCE to AUX on Aug 19, 2010

      @dhathewa: The Volt is a distinctly new technology paradigm, as GM mentions elsewhere. Its risks are substantially higher than development of VVT, DI, or internal processes. The ownership experience will be unconventional - requiring plug-in - and its $41000 MSRP places it well above other economy cars, which is what it claims to be. The Volt was mentioned clearly by the Administration as a centerpiece for the new GM, as a car "Americans want to buy". Its green qualities place it squarely on the Administration's priorities, so any discussion of bailing out GM would have required the Volt development to continue. Killing it due to unprofitability was simply not going to be permitted. It is amusing and frightening to think that Congress and the Administration think they know what's strategically important for the future market. I can say with confidence that the market won't embrace a $41k economy car from GM, but they may walk across the showroom and buy a $17k Cruze.