Um, GM stock is essentially a call option on them not filing for bankruptcy. Yes they probably will file for bankruptcy, but there is a small chance (maybe 5% or so) that they will not. If somehow they pull through this mess without going bankrupt, whoever buys and holds the stock now will make a lot of money. That's why their stock is not worthless. When people refer to "volatility traders", they are referring to options traders.
For this same reason, you can buy 50% out-of-the-money June 2009 call options on the S&P 500 index, for instance. There is a small, but non-zero chance that you will make money.
@Hello Mister Walrus: @Hello Mister Walrus: Wouldn't that make GM bonds essentially call options for bankruptcy? If GM goes bankrupt, the bonds are worthless. If it survives, the bonds will keep yielding.
@sample032: It applies to both debt and equity. GM bonds and GM stocks will both gain if GM does not go bankrupt. There is just more downside to the equity. In a liquidation, bond holders will probably get paid some portion of what they are owed (until the liquidation proceeds run out). However, liquidation is unlikely for GM - there is no way the government will allow it. Instead, there will likely be some sort of "restructuring" which they might or might not call bankruptcy. Again, the bondholders will not lose 100%, but equity holders will be wiped out.
GM hasn't been worth anything as far as stocks/equity goes for a long time. The company owes more than it makes, meaning it has negative equity. The bondholders are in control of the company, not the stockholders.
Therefore, my theory is that the people who are buying stock are the Max Mosley's to GM's dominant bondholders in this drama.
There's always selling the workforce into Eastern European slavery. I don't have time to run a discounted cash flow of the labor value for building AK-47s and fake Tag Heuer watches, but sure it's enough to give common shareholders something.
Sad to see the company go down. Don't fret - they'll be back in a stronger way, and I'm sure we'll see lots of new American players in the auto industry over the next couple years. If there's a hole, there's some entrepreneur out there that might fill it :)
@MisterBoomBoom: It's weird with the auto industry because you need huge economies of scale to be competitive. That's why the same companies have been around for decades, or close to a century in some cases.
You're right - GM will be around for a while, albeit with a much smaller market share than it currently has. However, I would not expect many new American auto companies - the barriers to entry are just tremendous. You would need like a billion dollars of startup money to get going.
The only business model that has been remotely successful has been to develop high-end niche vehicles like Tesla, Fisker, or Salleen. It's still safe to assume that we will be driving the same make of cars that are parents did, and their parents...
@Hello Mister Walrus: if you want to produce a mass-market vehicle, it costs two billion dollars to tool up. That's JUST tooling up, and doing so in a factory that's already been built, with a workforce in place.
That doesn't account for design, engineering, procurement, financing, legal, safety, relationships with suppliers, etc., etc.
So it's pretty much impossible to start a new car company with the idea of competing against any of the top 40 manufacturers in the world.
So I see they've hired Carolyn Kennedy onto the writing staff. Isn't that one of the signs of the Apocalypse? I get confused between those and that plague of hemorrhoids thing with Moses.
It took getting an MBA in finance and management to help me realize how much I loathe finance and management. I worried about the money I was loosing by not being invested, but not enough to get me interested in investing. Consequently, I was not invested when the market crashed. I am intact. My strategy beat out all the strategies of all my asshole classmates in the MBA program. Who's the genius now?
This is interesting coming from a blog where 26% of readers have an income above $100k. I just learned that yesterday! Anyway, don't be too hard on New York mag readers. I suspect there's more than a little bit of overlap.
04/22/09
For this same reason, you can buy 50% out-of-the-money June 2009 call options on the S&P 500 index, for instance. There is a small, but non-zero chance that you will make money.
04/22/09
04/22/09
04/22/09
04/22/09
Therefore, my theory is that the people who are buying stock are the Max Mosley's to GM's dominant bondholders in this drama.
04/22/09
04/22/09
04/22/09
You're right - GM will be around for a while, albeit with a much smaller market share than it currently has. However, I would not expect many new American auto companies - the barriers to entry are just tremendous. You would need like a billion dollars of startup money to get going.
The only business model that has been remotely successful has been to develop high-end niche vehicles like Tesla, Fisker, or Salleen. It's still safe to assume that we will be driving the same make of cars that are parents did, and their parents...
04/22/09
That doesn't account for design, engineering, procurement, financing, legal, safety, relationships with suppliers, etc., etc.
So it's pretty much impossible to start a new car company with the idea of competing against any of the top 40 manufacturers in the world.
04/22/09
02/17/09
02/17/09
02/17/09
02/17/09
02/17/09
Or shorted.
02/17/09
Look, what can they say? No one told them this kind of stuff could happen.
And, basically, all they do for a living is repeat what they've been told.
02/17/09
02/17/09
02/17/09
02/16/09
01/14/09
01/14/09
01/14/09
01/14/09
(Anyone want to help a sister out?)
01/14/09
01/14/09