Citigroup Downgrades GM Stock Price Objective
6
Sponsored Links
In a research note issued to investors late last week, Citigroup has reduced the objective price of GM stock from $60,00 to $57.00. The institution, however, continues to have a buy rating on the stock, though now with a lower price point.
In the past few months, five financial analysts have issued reports on GM stock, as follows.
On September 11th, Goldman Sachs Group set a $36.00 price objective on GM stock while giving the firm a neutral rating.
ValuEngine downgraded GM shares from a hold rating to a sell rating on Tuesday, September 4th.
In a research note released Friday, August 17th, Morgan Stanley dropped its GM stock price objective from $50.00 to $46.00 while also setting an overweight rating.
General Motors executives and board members during the company’s IPO in November 2010
Royal Bank of Canada boosted its price objective of GM stock from $52.00 to $53.00 and also gave the automaker an outperform rating in a Tuesday, July 10th research note.
On a research note on Thursday, June 28th, Zacks Investment Research upgraded GM shares Motors from a hold rating to a buy rating, and set a $46.00 price objective.
In total, three analysts have GM stock rated with a sell rating, seven have given it a hold rating and thirteen have given it a buy rating. The Detroit-based automaker has an average rating of Hold and an average price target of $46.98.
As of market close on Wednesday, October 10th, GM stock closed at $32.60, down 0.18 percent or $0.06. The “New GM” held its Initial Public Offering (IPO) in November 2010 at $34.26.
Since then, the automaker has been doing its best to increase its share price. The firm has left unprofitable markets, divested of loss-making divisions, made adjustments to its business model in order to prioritize profit over market share, and also invested heavily into new-age mobility ventures such as electric and autonomous vehicles. However, GM stock continues to float around its yearly low, despite an occasional rally.
Sponsored Links
So where’s all the rightwingnut blowhards who trump up Trump’s economic success? Where TF is that success? Literally the millisecond the Obama effect wears off, the markets crash crash CRASH under Trump. Watch the news today, Trumpet lovers…
Trump’s economic plan for the American worker? Send BMW SUV production to China, Ford Focus production to China, keep low-class taxes high and high-class taxes low, sell access to himself through his daughter to any non-American with money for his children, trash the economy while Fox lies and lies and lies to cover it all up.
Just what Putin wanted for the American worker. And don’t they lap it up, like the lap dogs they are.
Why do you think Nikki Haley left the UN ambassador job and said Jared and Ivanka will get the job? Because Javanka is the STORE FRONT for non-American access to Trump. You want American workers to slave for you? Buy it from Javanka at the UN store…
GM stock pays a $1.52 dividend with full year earnings of $6.00+ per share.
Worries about weaker sales and fears of a full scale downturn continue to be a hangover for GM shares.
If GM can prove that earnings can still be decent in a downturn, then these shares will get a much higher valuation.
The restructuring of GM, 8-9 years ago has greatly reduced fixed labor overhead costs in a downturn.
“Fears of a ful sale downturn”
Under Trump? The economic miracle-man from god? Markets only go up under him!
…
(looks at this week’s news) WTF !!!
Those are not fears any more, are they? The economic miracle man turns out to be a 6-time bankrupt, shafting America for his lucky 7th bankruptcy, going down with your money blowing after him AAAAAAAAhhhhhhhhh…..
And here they are putting everything in large, inefficient trucks again. The economy will always go up and then down, that’s what it does. Fuel prices will only go up long term. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
“In 1953, former General Motors President Charles Wilson said, “What’s good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa.” GM sales hit a peak of 17.296 million vehicles in September 2005. But, as gas prices soared, GM’s sales plummeted.
By 2007, Americans found Wilson’s statement was no longer true. That’s the year Toyota beat GM to become the world’s leading automaker. It did so by meeting global demand for smaller cars. While Toyota was building plants in the United States, GM was closing them. Instead of changing, GM offered zero percent financing to sell SUVs and other large vehicles.
…
If there had been no bailout, Ford, Toyota, and Honda would have picked up even more market share. Since they had U.S. plants, they would have increased jobs for Americans once the recession was over. The loss of GM would be like the loss of Pan Am, TWA, and other companies that had a strong American heritage but lost their competitiveness. It would have perhaps tugged at the heartstrings of America but not really hurt the economy. As a result, the auto industry bailout was not critical to the U.S. economy, like the rescue of AIG or the banking system. ” – the balance
“If there had been no bailout, Ford, Toyota, and Honda would have picked up even more market share.”
You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. FORD begged the government to bailout GM and Chrysler because had they not done so, Ford would have been guaranteed to go out of business too. Ford CEO Alan Mullaly told congress: “In particular, the collapse of one or both of our domestic competitors would threaten Ford because we have 80 percent overlap in supplier networks and nearly 25 percent of Ford’s top dealers also own GM and Chrysler franchises.”
They were so close to going bankrupt themselves that they had asked the government for a $9 billion line of credit. Mullaly told congress: “In addition to our plan, we are also here today to request support for the industry. In the near-term, Ford does not require access to a government bridge loan. However, we request a credit line of $9 billion as a critical backstop or safeguard against worsening conditions as we drive transformational change in our company.” That line of credit would have been on top of the negative interest rate “loan” of $5.9 billion they received from the federal government for plant upgrades to build “fuel efficient” powertrains.