With two profitable quarters under its belt, the “new” General Motors is preparing to seek new investors, the first step toward cutting its ties to the U.S. government.

The $3.8 billion it earned before interest and taxes in the first half of 2010 sounds OK, but you can't trust the numbers. Why?

Because GM said so.

The most glaring of many disclosures contained in the 734-page IPO document is this warning on page 25:

"We have determined that our disclosure controls and procedures and our internal control over financial reporting are currently not effective. The lack of effective internal controls could materially adversely affect our financial condition and ability to carry out our business plan."

The company goes on to say:

"Until we have been able to test the operating effectiveness of remediated internal controls and ensure the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures, any material weaknesses may materially adversely affect our ability to report accurately our financial condition and results of operations in the future in a timely and reliable manner. In addition, although we continually review and evaluate internal control systems to allow management to report on the sufficiency of our internal controls, we cannot assure you that we will not discover additional weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting."

Say what?

That's a bunch of legalese, but basically, GM is saying it can't guarantee its reported results are accurate. And its auditor, Deloitte & Touche, agrees. But GM wants you to invest in the company anyway.

In recent years, GM—a company traditionally run by bean counters— had a habit of restating its quarterly results long after the quarter had closed. In January 2009, GM settled a case filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission over the way it accounted for pensions and other issues. The company identified problems with its bookkeeping and put in a number of remedies that year.

GM said it had reason to believe the fixes were sufficient, but then it filed for bankruptcy in mid-2009, and that created a whole new set of financial problems. When it emerged 40 days later, the company once again had to restate earnings under what's known as "fresh start accounting."

All of which is to say GM's finance department was very, very busy over the past year and a half. As a result, it really hasn't been able to fully test the new policies and procedures to see if they are effective.

Now, of course, GM goes on to say "we believe that there are no material inaccuracies or omissions of material fact and, to the best of our knowledge" the figures for 2009, both before and after bankruptcy, and for the first half of 2010 are accurate.

But should we trust them?

Executives at other companies are scratching their heads, too, especially since GM has a new chief executive, Daniel Akerson, who won't even take over until September 1. He's a telecommunications executive who, like chief financial officer Christopher Liddell, has no experience with the auto industry.

What's the rush in going public? It might be politically expedient for the Obama administration, but America needs GM to be successful, and it only gets one chance to go public. If there are lingering doubts about the company's chances for success, GM stock won't fetch a good price, and taxpayers won't be fully repaid.

Why not give Akerson and Liddell a chance to get up to speed on the auto business, and to make sure GM's finances are in order?