Quote:
Originally Posted by lookout123
Of course, if you gave the rest of the pertinent information the story would look a little different.
|
lookout123 added information to only confuse the bottom line. Irrelevant is ROI (which includes dividends). We are discussing GMs market value. GM refused to innovate. GM routinely stifling innovation also is a major reason for today's high oil prices.
Dividends are irrelevant to corporate value. Accurately demonstrated, GM's 1976 investors reaped a loss of corporate value when a stock investment should have averaged a 1,170% value increase.
Previous figures also included the various stock splits. Why confuse others with dividends that were not relevant and stock splits that were already included? lookout123 says he will take any oppurtunity to attack this poster; honesty be damned.
Had the same investor bought 100 shares in 1990, then his $38,000 corporate value has decreased to $14,000 - again due to inferior products. An average company would have increased to $151,700 in those 18 years. Why negative growth? Occurs when a company does as stock brokers promote. "Greed is good". "The purpose of a company is its profits." Therefore GM does not innovate (except when required by government standards), makes products that achieved no energy conservation, cries about unfair foreign competition, blames unions, blames our education system, blames tax laws, enriches their management, shorts their pension funds for $7 billion to claim higher profits (and claim a 'legacy cost' myth), and does not even have the 70 Hp/l engine in all products 30+ years later.
GM demonstrates a major reason for higher oil prices and why more jobs go overseas where finance people (ie stock brokers) do not hinder product innovation.
Irrelevant to the bottom line is lookout123's post. Topic is GM's value - not dividends. Topic is about how GM played money games to maximize profits while stifling innovation. Therefore GM created a company with less value.
Numerous investment management firms conclude that GM is probably worth more if broken up. Why? Breaking up GM would eliminate a reason for its low market value AND the major reason for so much stifled innovation: top management. How ironic that Sycamore would praise GM products when those bean counter designed products clearly are a major contributor to higher gas prices.
When innovative companies average 11.7 times more value, GM has lost value. GM is worth less to a Jan 1976 investor for same reasons why GM products consume so much energy wastefully. If GM had been patriotic and loyal to its stock holders, an average GM product would probably do something approaching 40 MPG AND contain technologies that other nations (manufacturers) must purchase. Instead, GM used cost controls - a bean counter mentality.