<VV> Corvair didn't make money?

[N. Joseph Potts]

This argument strikes this bean counter as quite plausible. However, Nader
and possibly GM Marketing did not cooperate in generating significant unit
sales over which to amortize said tooling costs. I doubt tooling was
particularly more expensive than for the EM, but it was likely just as much,
and very RECENTLY (might even say, inconveniently in view of subsequent
events) incurred. Discontinuing Corvair "production" (that word's a stretch
for 68 and 69) so long may have helped GM avoid taking a very large
write-off (of those tooling costs) at a time when its bottom line may not
have been especially robust even without such reductions. Those last years
of production may very well have been essentially an accounting ploy.
Nothing new about those.

Joe Potts
Bean Counter

-----Original Message-----
From: virtualvairs-admin@corvair.org
[mailto:virtualvairs-admin@corvair.org]On Behalf Of Mark J. Murphy
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 2:38 PM
To: Virtualvairs@corvair.org
Subject: Re: RE: <VV> Corvair didn't make money?


I had heard it was the bean counters that kept it going for the last few
years.  They did better financially in the long run by amortizing tooling
costs (a 5 year process) even if the sales weren't profitable, and the
tooling costs for the late models were substantial.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      ,-----___\----,    Mark Murphy
      \--(o)----(o)--'  Derry, NH, USA
    http://m.j.murphy.home.comcast.net/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~