The Coming Auto Bailout

[gags]

It doesn't sound like there will be an "Auto Czar" under this plan. Of course, there will be 535 Auto Czars sitting in the House and Senate....

[utabintarbo]

It doesn't sound like there will be an "Auto Czar" under this plan. Of course, there will be 535 Auto Czars sitting in the House and Senate....

Was that not already the case?

[softwareNerd]

The "Carpe Diem" blog has pictures comparing the auto union contract/rules from 1941 and 2007. The 2007 contract runs over 2000 pages.

As for the angelic union leaders, working hard to help their worker buddies, here's some video.

[gags]

As most observers predicted, the first round of handouts won't be enough. GM "has presented a worst-case scenario to Congress in which it would need more money than the $13.4 billion allocated by the Treasury Department."

In another easily predicted move, the unions are now going to collect on a couple of political debts and make sure that their wages and benefits stay above market rates, courtesy of the US taxpayer: "UAW President Ron Gettelfinger has said the union will approach President-elect Barack Obama's administration to end what he called unfair requirements in the loan terms for concessions from the union."

"U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., has proposed getting rid of a requirement that GM and Chrysler negotiate labor cost parity with foreign-owned automakers that have U.S. factories."

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...0403/1022/rss10

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Conservatives are making a move to say that the auto bail out is unconstitutional because the executive branch has no authority to hand out treasure funds without a specific law permitting it. And they say the original law permitting the release of funds, The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, was only by law for the financial industry. They also say too much power was granted to the executive branch when congress ought to have taken up the issue in voting for a new bill, if necessary.

[gags]

Now it looks as though Obama is poised to allow the states to set their own emissions standards. This will be a disaster for the domestic auto manufacturers as they simply can't make money selling small cars with their current cost structures. Something has to give. Either Obama is going to have to throw his union buddies overboard or the US Auto industry is going to become a permanent ward of the state.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090126/ap_on_...reenhouse_gases

[utabintarbo]

Not to mention the burden of trying to produce cars that match 50 disparate sets of regulations. Sure, no problem.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090126/ap_on_...reenhouse_gases

From that article:

"For the sake of our security, our economy and our planet, we must have the courage and commitment to change," Obama said in his first formal event in the ornate East Room of the White House.

And:

"The federal government must work with, not against, states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," Obama said. He added: "The days of Washington dragging its heels are over. My administration will not deny facts; we will be guided by them."

In other words, it is an unquestionable fact that greenhouse gases are destroying the planet and that mankind is the blame for any global warming.

I'm reminded of that scene from Atlas Shrugged in which some bureaucrat is telling Hank Rearden that, "You will find a way!" to comply with our impossible to meet guidelines at the point of a gun.

[gags]

Ford just announced its losses in 2008 totaled $14.6 billion with $5.9 billion of that coming in the fourth quarter. To their credit, Ford management is still refusing to dip into the Federal pile of cash, although it looks like both GM and Chrysler would be happy to take everything made available to Ford and more. On a positive note, each of the 3 domestic manufacturers has now announced that they are ending their jobs banks with the UAW. Those programs gave laid off workers virtually all of their pay, which was economic suicide.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090129/ap_on_bi_ge/earns_ford

[Rearden_Steel]

As most observers predicted, the first round of handouts won't be enough. GM "has presented a worst-case scenario to Congress in which it would need more money than the $13.4 billion allocated by the Treasury Department."

In another easily predicted move, the unions are now going to collect on a couple of political debts and make sure that their wages and benefits stay above market rates, courtesy of the US taxpayer: "UAW President Ron Gettelfinger has said the union will approach President-elect Barack Obama's administration to end what he called unfair requirements in the loan terms for concessions from the union."

"U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., has proposed getting rid of a requirement that GM and Chrysler negotiate labor cost parity with foreign-owned automakers that have U.S. factories."

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...0403/1022/rss10

I don’t see what difference the bailout makes. GM has 170 billion in liabilities last quarter and has lost 20 billion in net income in the last two. I’m still waiting to see their latest numbers but last year they lost nearly 39 billion in net income and it looks like they will have around the same numbers in 2008.

What the hell is 13 billion going to do for them? They lost more than that in the second quarter!!

[gags]

That's the problem, GM may be too far gone to save. In bankruptcy they could have voided their labor agreements and other obligations. Now they're just going to limp along as we all subsidize their floundering business model.

[gags]

This is an interesting article from Forbes:

The author briefly describes the experiences of other nations that have faced major economic shocks and he indicates which strategies for dealing with the problems were successful. His conclusion is essentially that we need to let the damaged companies (the "zombies")go under and redeploy the resources to more productive activities. This seems particularly relevant for the US Auto industry:

As we wring our hands about getting more involved in the financial sector and saving the jobs in the auto sector, and as we watch the many inefficient industries line up for help, it behooves us to ask: Which of these are zombies? If there is one lesson that seems to leap out at us, it is that, however great the short-term costs, the costs of keeping zombies alive is much greater. With stopgap measures in place, designed as much to sustain the zombie illusion as anything else, it becomes harder and harder for legislators to tap into the political will for painful but essential remedies.

As the debate over TARP II moves forward, legislators need to call it like it is. If major players in our economy are bankrupt, then it is time for the government to become the debtor in possession in an orderly (insofar as possible) restructuring of Citi (nyse: C - news - people ), Bank of America (nyse: BAC - news - people ), General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ), Chrysler ... Better that, than a decade or more of lost growth and lost opportunity.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/10/recession...mas_cooley.html

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

If I understand this story correctly, GM is considering filing Chapter 11 bankruptcy in order to do the restructuring it needs in order to get $17 billion from the government. In other words, they are trying to clear something like $28 billion in debt by filing bankruptcy, and then asking for a handout from the American people. I'm not exactly sure that is what the article is saying, however.

[gags]

GM hasn't been able to get the necessary concessions from bondholders and the unions and it doesn't look like they'll be able to get them prior to the government's deadline. The article indicates that one option being considered is a Chapter 11 filing. This sounds likely to me, however if that happens I doubt there would be the political will to continue to dole out government funds to GM.

Now the suppliers are also asking for about $25 billion. It's a crazy path that we've headed down with this industry.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Looks like the UAW has worked out a deal with GM, but I wouldn't say it is much of a deal. It really only covers future pay raises, not a concession to make less money while times are hard. In other words, GM won't really be saving any money, for what I can tell, except in a stock deal, if I understand the terms correctly.

I recently had my hours cut back and I can marginally afford that, but if it came to a pay cut in hourly rate, so long as it was marginal, I could afford that. I'd rather not have less hours or less pay, but given the situation, I don't want to drive the business out of business or lose my job at this time. But it seems as if the UAW want to hold out even if it leads to bankruptcy for GM. I don't think it is a good deal for GM, except that if they agree to those terms they will be able to get more government funds. If it wasn't for the hand-outs from the government, GM and Chrysler would be no more.

Edited February 18, 2009 by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

[Jake_Ellison]

Yeah, they're both counting on money from the government. They are brothers in arms, they need each other: the UAV leadership needs this type of deal to keep their positionss, and the GM leadership needs the UAV's pull in Washington to keep the bailouts coming.

[gags]

This past week GM announced that in the 4th Quarter it lost another $9.6 billion. That makes the Company's losses total about $31 billion for 2008. That's some pretty ugly financial performance until you consider that Fannie Mae lost about $60 billion in 2008. Fannie makes GM look like a well run operation!

[Rearden_Steel]

Its impressive that a company would lose three times the amount of its own gross profit.

This is so incompetent the word incompetent in this case is lacking. I will coin a new word; G-m-competent. It means to fail at something so completely that the outcome of an event is three times the opposite of that which was intended.

Edited February 28, 2009 by Rearden_Steel

[gags]

GM has negative equity of $86 billion, which I understand far exceeds all of the dividends it has paid to shareholders since the inception of the company. In short, the business has not generated a net economic profit over its long history.

[utabintarbo]

GM has negative equity of $86 billion, which I understand far exceeds all of the dividends it has paid to shareholders since the inception of the company. In short, the business has not generated a net economic profit over its long history.

Epic Fail. And now they beg for more money to flush.

No soup for you, GM. To bankruptcy you go!

[gags]

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/090305/gm_annual_report.html

This may be the last nail in GM's coffin. Their auditors are giving them what is called a "Going-Concern Opinion". This means that there is substantial doubt as to whether the company can continue in business. Not that anybody with a brain didn't already know there was such doubt, but when the auditors provide this form of an opinion, it has a lot of very bad consequences for a firm and anyone who deals with that firm. For GM, this will void many of their supplier agreements and will cause them to blow their loan covenants, meaning that certain debt may come due immediately. It will also cause their suppliers huge problems and force many of them into bankruptcy as the accounts receivable they have with GM are not longer viable collateral for their bank lines of credit.

In short, this is another disaster for the entire industry and I don't see how any of the Detroit 3, including Ford, can get through this crisis without going into Chapter 11.

[JASKN]

No soup for you, GM. To bankruptcy you go!

I don't understand your mentality here. I think it's sad that GM is going to go out without a net profit. Though its later history is embarrassing, that doesn't cancel out all of its prior success, especially enough to write off the whole thing with a Seinfeld joke.

[K-Mac]

1.) They already got soup from all of us

2.) It is sad that they aren't showing a profit, but it's their own fault

[Rearden_Steel]

General Motors Corp.'s (GM) auditors cast doubt Thursday on the Detroit auto maker's ability to survive without more U.S. government loans, in a foreboding assessment of the company's financial plight.

You mean that the bailout money was not enough to keep GM running? Wow. Who saw this coming? Oh, wait any one who bothered looking.

I hate that everyone is playing dumb. Especially the press. You mean that the 13.4 billion given to GM wasn’t enough to pay off its 46.5 billion dollar debt? Keeping in mind the company’s net income is minus 9.5 billion last quarter what makes them think that they can ever pay off a 100 billion dollar loan?

[utabintarbo]

I don't understand your mentality here. I think it's sad that GM is going to go out without a net profit. Though its later history is embarrassing, that doesn't cancel out all of its prior success, especially enough to write off the whole thing with a Seinfeld joke.

What K-Mac said.

I am not happy about this. I work in the auto industry (so far). But throwing good money after bad seems like a silly policy. Time to re-org or liquidate.

And this particular Seinfeld ref. seems pretty apropos here. Sorry.