New car sales in May are expected to reach their highest level since 2007, according to auto research firm Truecar. The annualized pace will reach 14.5 million. This trend has helped many car companies, particularly those based in the United States, post strong profits.

As car sales rise, the complexion of brand preference has changed. Toyota (NYSE: TM) is the biggest beneficiary of new buying habits. Its market share is expected to reach 14.8% next month, up from 10.2% in the same month a year ago. Much of the reason for that is the recovery of its production facilities after the Japanese earthquake in 2011. But strong demand for its popular brands like the Prius is just as important. Production improvements could not increase sales by themselves.

The car company that has made the most extraordinary comeback from the recession is Chrysler. It is expected to have a U.S. market share of 10.9% next month. That will put it ahead of Japanese giant Honda (NYSE: HMC), which has had sales driven by high-quality ratings in the past. Chrysler has made an improbable comeback from Chapter 11. Many analysts believed it would lack the financial ability to produce enough new models to be competitive. Its management countered that by releasing relatively few cars that sold extremely well.

Against these improvements are Hyundai and Kia’s numbers. Their market shares are expected to fall to 9.3% next month from 10.1% last year. Hyundai got many of its sales from its pricing, and some from its aggressive warranty offers.

American taste in cars has returned to traditional brands. It is impossible to tell why for certain. But the trend has started to hurt Hyundai badly.

Douglas A. McIntyre

Toyota, Japan’s biggest car maker by volume, plans to sell more than 1 million subcompacts in more than 100 countries and regions, such as China, Southeast Asia, India and Brazil by 2015.

Toyota does not have many other places to go for expansion. The European markets are nearly dead. China’s market has slowed considerably. Toyota’s sales have picked up a great deal in America, but the market has become progressively more competitive as US car companies has been revived, and large firms, which include VW, BMW,and Mercedes, have aggressively exploited the one region in which they have an ongoing chance for rising sales volume.

Douglas A. McIntyre

The Trust for America’s Health, a nonprofit disease prevention group, released a report earlier this month on various causes of injuries and deaths in the United States. Included in that report is a by-state analysis of CDC data on auto fatalities, the costs arising from all fatalities, and the policies states use to prevent car crashes. 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the 10 states that had the highest rates of auto fatalities.

Deaths caused by motor vehicle accidents in the U.S. range widely. Twelve states averaged less than 10 deaths per 100,000 people a year during 2007 to 2009. Massachusetts had the lowest average yearly rate in the country of just 5.5 per 100,000 people. On the other end of the spectrum, 14 states had at least three times as many deaths per 100,000 people. Mississippi had close to five times that rate.

A CDC report identified the estimated lifetime costs incurred by the states as the result of auto fatalities in a single year, including medical expenses and lost economic productivity. These two costs exceeded $170 billion in the U.S. in 2005, the most recent year data are available.

With such high costs, and more importantly loss of life, the question is whether there is anything states can do to prevent car accidents. The Trust for America’s Health found that nothing works better to prevent traffic deaths than seat belt use. According to a report released by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, six of the 10 states with the lowest seat belt usage rates also had the highest average auto fatality rates between 2007 and 2009.

The Trust for America’s Health report also identified four key policies labeled by the CDC as useful in improving traffic safety. The four include having a primary seat belt law (which allows police to stop and ticket unbuckled drivers without any other cause), a mandatory ignition interlock for all convicted drunk drivers, a mandatory motorcycle helmet law, and requiring booster seats for children eight years old and younger.

Despite the massive financial burden auto accidents place on states each year, it appears many still fail to enact the kinds of basic safety laws that are believed to be instrumental in cutting down auto accidents deaths. In fact, it appears that the states with the highest rates of auto fatalities are missing some of those key policies. Of the 15 states with one or none of these policies in place, seven were among those with the highest fatality rates.

24/7 Wall St. ranked all 50 U.S. states based on the highest yearly average automobile deaths per 100,000 people from 2007 to 2009. 24/7 Wall St. also calculated the total costs incurred by state for these deaths using the CDC’s WISQAR report, which was for 2005. While the average auto mortality rate and the cost estimates are from different time periods, each are the most recently available data, and were used to approximate the actual costs of traffic deaths.

GM (NYSE: GM) and Peugeot plan to jointly operate production facilities in Europe. GM’s Opel division is bleeding money in the region. Peugeot is one of the most troubled European car companies financially. GM has also made in investment in Peugeot. And, trouble is probably what binds Fiat and Mazda together. Fiat’s sales in Europe have collapsed. Mazda’s sales run well behind Japanese rivals Toyota (NYSE: TM), Honda (NYSE: HMC), and Nissan. Nissan already has a close alliance with Renault.

Fiat and Mazda don’t have the capacity to easily develop large numbers of new models on their own.

Douglas A. McIntyre

Moody’s went on to note that Ford’s Corporate Family and Probability of Default Ratings, as well as its Speculative Grade Liquidity rating, are withdrawn.   Where this rating gets interesting is that Ford’s secured credit facility was lowered to Baa3 from Baa2 in anticipation of the imminent fall away of the bank agreement’s security interest.  Moody’s said, “This fall away, which would be consistent with the facility’s terms, would result in any outstandings being pari passu with Ford’s other senior unsecured debt.”

Today’s upgrade is based on Ford’s position in North America, as well as its robust liquidity position and the expectation that the company will continue to embrace sound operating and financial disciplines.

Moody’s even made some inference that Ford will weather the storm: “We believe that these strengths will enable Ford to maintain an investment grade profile in the face of the sector’s ongoing cyclicality and weakness in the European market.”

Ford closed down 0.1% at $10.19 but the stock was up 1.2% at $10.33 in the after-hours session.

JON C. OGG

Moody’s said in its report, “GM’s credit quality continues to improve and the company remains on track to regain an investment grade credit rating over the course of the next 12 months.”   The outlook and rating reflect the highly competitive North American business model that the company is expected to maintain.  Moody;’s expects that GM will leverage its improved cost structure as it brings new product introductions to market.

Another positive is that the company has a strong position in high-growth Asian markets such as China. Here is where investors should just go ahead and expect an upgrade as long as the global slowing doesn’t get too deeply in the way: “These strengths should enable GM to generate credit metrics that could be supportive of an investment grade rating in the near term.”

Some challenges with the current Ba1 rating are execution risks, increasing the use of global platforms, and improving the competitive position of its European operations.  Moody’s also included, “Upward movement in GM’s rating could be supported if the company continues to execute its operating and financial plan, and if there is moderation in the economic and financial uncertainty in Europe.”

GM shares closed won 0.2% at $21.50 today, but shares are up 0.7% at $21.65.  Is it possible to have an investment grade rating when the U.S. taxpayers own such a large stake in GM?

JON C. OGG

According to the Census Bureau, the median American home costs $221,800, and the median household income is slightly more than $50,000. These should provide some perspective to the cost of buying and maintaining the vehicles on our list. The purchase prices of these cars range from $91,000 to more than $210,000. And the true costs to own the cars for five years range from $117,000 to more than $245,000 — on top of the purchase price.

A large component of these extreme true costs of ownership is the luxury vehicles’ steep depreciation in the first five years. These 10 models are projected to lose anywhere between 27% and 47% of their value in their first half-decade on the road, leading owners to lose between $56,000 and $153,000 in depreciation alone.

While depreciation is a big part of these expenses, it is far from the only major expense. Several direct costs, including repairs, maintenance, insurance and fuel charges, can cost a driver more than $10,000 for each expense during the first five years.

As gas prices approach $4.00 per gallon, fuel costs are increasingly becoming an issue — even for some of the wealthiest drivers. Each of these cars, because of their status as high-end vehicles with high-end engines, has terrible gas mileage. The most fuel-efficient car on our list gets 20 miles per gallon. Six of the 10 get 17 miles to the gallon or less. Over a five-year period, the owners of these cars will have each paid at least $15,000 in fuel costs.

This list is based on True Cost to Own figures, which were provided by Edmunds.com. 24/7 Wall St. also included fuel economy data from the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. registration totals from Edmunds.com, and quality and design ratings from JD Power and Associates.

These are the cars that cost the most to own.

The motor home maker also said that it “has not received sufficient information to deem the offer as credible.” The company also noted:

The “offer” described in the letter is highly conditional, requiring, among other things, due diligence and further negotiation. The Company advises that no offer has been made to shareholders and that they need not take any action at this time in response to North Street’s letter.

For its quarter ended in February, Winnebago reported a net loss of $912,000, blaming “increased discounts and continued aggressive pricing strategies” for the shortfall. Shares have not priced above $20 since early 2008, as the US recession battered sales and margins and the economic recovery has been slow. High gas prices don’t help either.

Winnebago’s shares are up, but the company’s lukewarm response to the offer is capping the enthusiasm. Shares are trading up about 5.4% at $8.97 in a 52-week range of $6.02-$12.40.

Among those firms headquartered in Europe, the worst results were from Fiat (off 11.5% in April) and Renault (down 15.1%). At least Fiat owns the majority of Chrysler, which has surging sales in the U.S. And Renault has a partnership with Nissan that has done well recently. But neither relationship with another manufacturer will solve the basic problem of sluggish sales in Europe. Each company must find a solution. If the industry’s past is any indication, these corporations will have to battle with unions and governments in order to sharply cut employment and production. The industry will look like it did in the U.S. in 2008 and 2009. For Fiat and Renault to balance expenses with sales, they will need to gut parts of their production capacities.

General Motors’ (NYSE: GM) European sales fell 10.9% in April. Results from its flagship Opel/Vauxhall division were down 16.7%. GM has made it clear it will need to slash capacity in Europe and has sent some of its top executives to oversee the process. Unions, and governments in nations where GM has plants, already have said they will strongly oppose the moves. Long strikes and pressure from political officials will make the implementation of GM’s programs very messy. But the world’s largest car company probably has decided already that the turmoil is the only path to solve its EU problem. Renault and Fiat may need to make similar decisions.

The car industry in Europe does look like the one in the U.S. did several years ago. There is an essential difference, though. The American economy recovered from a recession, and people began to replace their cars or become first time buyers. Much of Europe is headed back into recession. The car markets in the area will be troubled for a long time, and there will be violent battles to settle whether manufacturers in Europe can run financially viable operations.

Douglas A. McIntyre

There have been rumblings that Facebook’s advertising value resided more in an advertiser’s own content than in the display and other ad placements. Clearly GM thinks so.

While this is not particularly good news for Facebook right as its IPO is about to get kicked out the door, it’s not terribly devastating either. After all, $10 million out of $3.7 billion in revenue is not a big slice. But the social network needs to figure out how to do ads and how to prove that the ads are working if it doesn’t want more defectors. Once again, $10 million here and $10 million there and pretty soon it adds up to real money.

Paul Ausick