Toyota to raise prices out of consideration for U.S. car makers

"Toyota Motor Corp. is preparing to raise prices of its new cars in the
United States by an average 2 percent to 3 percent in October out of
consideration to its struggling U.S. rivals, the Asahi daily said on
Friday."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050610/...apan_toyota_dc

This article cracked me up. "Out of consideration"... nice spin. Maybe
they can buy some of GM and Ford junk bonds to prop them up too. =)

Look at the market capitalization of Toyota as compared to Ford or GM.
Toyota could actually buyout GM, but it would lower its own stock price.

BRaymond wrote:
> Toyota could actually buyout GM, but it would lower its own stock price.

Of course Toyota could buy out GM... but why would they want to do
that?

GM's market cap is so low, they could could buy themselves out. ($20B
market cap compared to $300B debt).

In article .com>, "Bucky" > wrote:

>GM's market cap is so low, they could could buy themselves out. ($20B
>market cap compared to $300B debt).

The $30B is an over-hyped on generally misunderstood number. The
vast majority, about 90%, is from the credit company, GMAC.
Anyone know how much debt the other leading loan companies hold?
And how GM's $30B of auto company debt compares to any other auto
company's?

I don't think that debt is much of an issue. The real issue is
the long-term retiree and worker obligations compared to their
current and future market share. And even there, I suspect that
the present crisis is somewhat media overblown. Just MHO.

In Japan a company can not be owned by a foreign corporation.


mike hunt



BRaymond wrote:
>
> Look at the market capitalization of Toyota as compared to Ford or GM.
> Toyota could actually buyout GM, but it would lower its own stock price.

> wrote:
> >GM's market cap is so low, they could could buy themselves out. ($20B
> >market cap compared to $300B debt).

Dave wrote:
> The $30B is an over-hyped on generally misunderstood number. The
> vast majority, about 90%, is from the credit company, GMAC.

Hmm, good point. I'm don't claim to understand financial statements.
But for the record, I did not mistype $300 B. Their debt really is $300
B, not $30 B.

I'll take another approach then: I noticed that GM has $15B cash, so
they still almost can buy themselves out. I checked Ford too, and
they're even closer. $18.7B cash compared to $19.1B market cap.

In article .com>, "Bucky" > wrote:

>Hmm, good point. I'm don't claim to understand financial statements.
>But for the record, I did not mistype $300 B. Their debt really is $300
>B, not $30 B.

No, I mistyped. You are correct that the total debt is $300B, of
which all but about $30B is GMAC's.

Dave wrote:
> I don't think that debt is much of an issue. The real issue is
> the long-term retiree and worker obligations

japan has retirees, too. and its expensive as hell to live there.

its not like they send all their old people off onto flaming rafts in
the sea of japan, or give em seppuku swords to kill them selves instead
of a gold watch.

i think part of the reason lies with nationalized health care.

In article >, SoCalMike > wrote:
>Dave wrote:
>> I don't think that debt is much of an issue. The real issue is
>> the long-term retiree and worker obligations
>
>japan has retirees, too. and its expensive as hell to live there.

GM was the single largest corporation in the world. If I recall,
there are currently about 1M retirees that GM covers. I would be
surprised if Toyota's numbers are anywhere close, but I cannot say
for a fact.

>i think part of the reason lies with nationalized health care.

To be sure.

SoCalMike wrote:

> Dave wrote:
>
>> I don't think that debt is much of an issue. The real issue is the
>> long-term retiree and worker obligations
>
>
> japan has retirees, too. and its expensive as hell to live there.
>
> its not like they send all their old people off onto flaming rafts in
> the sea of japan, or give em seppuku swords to kill them selves instead
> of a gold watch.
>
> i think part of the reason lies with nationalized health care.

Not to mention universal retirement - wouldn't it be ironic if the Big 3
CEOs lead the way to universal health coverage in the US?