The Road to a Bailout They Don't Deserve

The Road to a Bailout They Don't Deserve

formatting link
Wednesday, September 3, 2008; D01

It's desperation time for the Big Three automakers. They are awash in gas-guzzling vehicles nobody wants to buy, bleeding red ink and running out of cash.

So it should be no surprise that when Congress returns next week, the companies and their unions will put on a full-court press to win approval for $50 billion in federal loans to be used to re-engineer and retool their plants for a new generation of energy-efficient vehicles.

With the auto-dependent states of Michigan, Ohio and Indiana up for grabs in November, the Big Three hope to use the political calendar to their full advantage. They've already won the backing of both of the presidential candidates, along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who promises quick action this fall. And while the White House has indicated its reluctance to involve the government in the rescue of yet another industry, it may have a hard time explaining why the automakers are any less deserving of a "bailout" than Wall Street investment banks or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The foundation for this effort was quietly laid last year in a little-noted provision tucked into the energy bill passed by Congress and signed by the president, providing for $25 billion in loans. Although any company producing autos in the United States could qualify for the loans, priority was given to those retooling plants that were more than 20 years old, which pretty much guarantees that most of the money will go the Ford, Chrysler, General Motors and their suppliers.

Since passage of the energy bill, things have only gone from bad to worse for the Big Three, due to the credit crunch, an economic downturn and $4-a-gallon gasoline. So the industry and its supporters will try to expand the program to $50 billion and provide the necessary funding in the omnibus spending bill that will be needed before the election to prevent a government shutdown.

Even before top industry executives arrive in Washington later this month to lobby for their program, General Motors' vice chairman, Robert Lutz, who never misses an opportunity to put his foot in his mouth, was telling reporters in Chicago last week that the industry "deserves" government loans because of all the challenges that have been inflicted upon it. In fact, it's hard to imagine an industry less deserving of government help.

Here are three companies that for decades failed to produce cars that were well designed, well produced and exciting to look at, that fought tooth and nail against efforts to require greater fuel efficiency and, until recently, did too little to bring wages, benefits and retiree costs in line with competitive realities. And while they whined for years that it was unfair trade that put them at a disadvantage, Toyota, Honda, BMW and other foreign transplants came along to prove that it is possible to produce quality cars at affordable prices in U.S. factories while offering decent wages and benefits.

Not only are the Big Three not deserving, but to help them out of their current predicament would also set a lousy precedent in a market-driven economy where the possibility of earning great wealth is supposed to be balanced against the possibility of failure. For the government to step in and put up $50 billion in loans to try to save the Big Three auto companies, after having done little or nothing to save the jobs of steelworkers and shoemakers and furniture craftsmen, would be patently unfair.

And yet it is probably the wise thing to do.

This is a uniquely inopportune time for these three giant companies, with their hundreds of thousands of employees and vast national network of suppliers and distributors, to be forced to go through the painful process of bankruptcy reorganization. The national economy is already looking at years of recession and stagnation due to the worst housing and financial crisis since the 1930s, while the economy in much of the industrialized Midwest is already in its own depression.

If one of these companies is forced into bankruptcy, the other two are almost certain to follow, resulting in massive layoffs and plant closures, a hit to the incomes of millions of retirees and another body blow to wounded banks and credit markets that have lent the Big Three hundreds of billions of dollars. It would also dump tens of billions of dollars in pension liabilities on the federal government's pension guarantee agency.

Is bankruptcy inevitable? It's hard to say. What is certain, however, is that if these companies are to have any chance of long-term survival, they will need to invest large sums over many years to develop new technology, redesign their cars, retool their plants and buy out even more workers and dealerships. And right now, it's not clear where the money would come from. Because of operating losses, they are burning through cash like a Hummer running on unleaded premium. And given the pickle that the hedge fund geniuses at Cerberus now find themselves in with their purchase of Chrysler, the chances of raising any additional equity capital are pretty close to zero. Borrowing money might still be a possibility, but the cost would be prohibitive: On credit markets yesterday, some Ford bonds were yielding close to 20 percent, some GM bonds more than 28.

That's why the best of a set of bad options might be for the government to step in and provide the Big Three with low-interest long-term loans, just as it did years ago with Lockheed and Chrysler. The government should insist that its loans get first priority and be used only for investment in new technology that can be shared with competitors, or in new plants and equipment that could be sold to other car companies in the event of a bankruptcy. The government might also insist on further cuts in shareholder dividends, executive salaries, blue-collar wages and retiree benefits, at least until the current crisis has passed.

Can we be assured that, after the Big Three, no other industry will step forward and demand that the government rescue it from its own misjudgments? Unfortunately not. This is what happens when asset bubbles develop, countries live beyond their means -- and then, inevitably, the bubble bursts and economic reality finally reasserts itself. Now the bill is coming due. The only thing left to be resolved is how it will be paid.

Reply to
Jim Higgins
Loading thread data ...

WHY?

These are LOANS not giveaways. The companies will have to pay them back.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

Actually as in the past they're most likely loan guarantees. Other lenders put up the cash, not the Government.

Reply to
miles

I feel that it's time that people stopped bashing the car companies for their alleged indiscretions. Sure, they built what the buyers wanted and paid for. Sure, they have been accused of building allegedly profit-heavy light truck chassis vehicles when they could have been putting more emphasis on small cars (with small profit margins)--if YOU were a sales person, would you rather sell something you could "deal" on and still make a decent personal profit or try to sell a small car with little profit and little wiggle room on the price, with the customer probably "walking" rather than signing on the bottom line? Put yourself in the shoes of the salespeople and see if your orientation might change!

When Chrysler got their loan guarantees, many made a big deal of it and claimed that they didn't deserve it. Later it came out that the Japanese automotive industry was (at that time) HIGHLY subsidized by their government. The federally-insured loan guarantees back then sounded so massive, but they would be a drop in the bucket now.

The buying public is somewhat fickle. When fuel prices climbed, they bought smaller cars. Now that prices have eased, smaller cars are sitting on the lots waiting for buyers, much less the "This is the Truck that is changing everything--Toyota Tundra".

Chrysler LLC, currently, is still saddled with what "The Germans" wrought on Chrysler's product portfolio. Neons that were replaced with Calibres, Stratus/Cirrus that were replaced with boxy cars and more weight, and the popular "square body" Chrysler 300. Not to knock these products, but their shapes are not as aerodynamic as the products they replaced nor are they quite as light weight. Much less how the "world engine" might fare in fuel economy compared to the prior 4 cylinders. I figured those boxier shapes are worth about 2mpg on the highway in real world conditions--by itself. 28mpg sells better than 26mpg in some products, just as 30mpg trumps 26mpg. Be that as it may . . .

Employee wages and health care and retirement costs didn't get to be hot topics until sales fell like they did. I wish that everybody that things or feels that retiree benefits need to be cut were some of the retirees whose benefits were being cut! How would that recommendation to cut or delete benefits . . . benefits that were committed to be there upon and after retirement, by the employer . . . but if it was YOU rather than THEM???? It's easy to talk about how others should be treated until "others" becomes "YOU".

In some respects, I wish that some retiree group would bring a "non-performance" lawsuit against the companies that are popularizing the "cut retiree benefits" activity. If the company's allegedly going broke paying the benefits, then why not let them go broke while fulfilling what was perceived to be a contractual obligation or promise to kick in upon retirement?

Of course, these "cuts" are only short-term stop-gap methods to allegedly protect the company's reserves. Not to be reinstated IF and when the company becomes profitable again. Look at what the airline employees gave up to help their employers stay in business. Now that they have made money, ONLY the CEOS and similar are getting their bonuses and such as the people who made it happen for them get nothing!

In the USA vehicle product mix, how many vehicles can really seat 6 normal adults comfortably and NOT be based on a light truck chassis platform? Most have become 4 passenger vehicles as they lack the necessary width and generally have a floor shift/console in the front. Narrower to downside to a more "international" size width or to save weight?

For MANY USA families, they need the extra room of a Durango or Aspen rather than that of Nitro to haul the kids around and maybe head out on a two week vacation. In some cases, a small sedan as the primary vehicle just won't do. Not to forget trips to Home Depot!

I, personally, do NOT like the fact that many USA industries have moved elsewhere to do business. Especially things like steel that we need for many sectors of our economy. These things did not happen overnight, but slowly over the course of years instead. Then, one day you look up and that industry has moved to Asia several years ago. Only thing is that it's not just one industry, it's many.

The fact that Nissan, Toyota, Honda, and BMW can prove that good cars can be built in the USA is due to the fact of how they are designed rather than relying upon assembly line "talent" to make up the difference.

In reality, the flow of industries to overseas locations should have been stopped long ago. In the present time, it will be hard to repair but we need to head in that direction, if possible. Unfortunately, much of the money that the USA Big 3 automakers make in annual profits comes from overseas operations (several years ago). This might be a world of "global economy" but I feel the automakers need to remember where they got that dance card and put emphasis on making things work as great as they can.

C-BODY

Reply to
C-BODY

Actually they're not. If they were, the WTO would have received complaints and held hearings.

Of course, Toyota doesn't depend on big trucks for most of its sales and profits, and its cars are much more desirable than the Big 3's.

Yeah, those Neons would sure be competitive today. With 10-year old used cars.

No car is. More safety requirements, and people demand more power. Heck, compare an 08 Corolla with a 98, or a Civic.

Boxiness doesn't always equate to bad aerodymanics. I remember reading the boxy Eagle Premier actually had a lower coefficient of drag than the "aero" Ford Taurus.

Well, remember, in Japan and Europe, the gov't supplies health care, not the employer. Perhaps if big business hadn't been so knee-jerk reactionary at any such prospect here, the Big 3 would have lower costs.

GM Acadia, Enclave, Traverse, Outlook; Ford Flex; Chrysler Town & Country; Dodge Grand Caravan.

The middle front seat was no place for an adult except in the largest cars of the 60s either. And the interiors are narrow due to (1) thicker doors for side impact resistance; (2) people wanting consoles for things like cup holders and cell phone holders; (3) narrower cars for less wind resistance.

Well, you can also get more cars in a parking lot!

Not really. A Durango seats 5 people comfortably (and maybe 2 kids in the third seat). A Highlander, Pilot, or Acadia will do the job just as well, and be lighter.

Which lets you rent a truck. Buying a huge vehicle for a few occasions is like buying a 20-room house just for those few times when the grandparents come to visit.

Reply to
Lloyd

So - the funds for the health care system would then come from where? (hint: so-called "free" health care is not free - anyone who says it is is playing a shell game)

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Reply to
Bill Putney

Of course "free" health care is not free: the cost is borne either by taxpayers in general or by the purchasers of the insurance policies 9and perhaps in the latter case partly by taxpayers in general as well). But there are ways of managing health care that provide coverage for everybody (including the unemployed on the same basis as everybody else) with a far lower overhead than in the USA. It's a while since I've lived in Australia, but the last I heard (a couple of years back), nobody pays more than 2.5% of taxable income for health insurance --and that covers the unemployed as well.

It's the total cost that matters: lower taxation costs us a small fortune for health insurance premiums paid to for-profit corporations which then pay for-profit hospitals. If our (I mean my family) tax rate were doubled but we got free health care, we'd still be ahead.

The US system has large overheads. Look at the number of billing people in a doctor's office or hospital trying to juggle what is covered by which insurance co. A recent piece in Reader's Digest with a title something like "x Things I Wish My Patients Knew" with contributions from several physicians included something to the effect of: "I wish my patients knew that I do not necessarily know personally the specialist to whom I refer them: all I know is that (s)he accepts their insurance."

With a "free" (not really, but you know what I mean) health care system, there is no good reason for people to have to choose between paying the rent and going to the ER or between buying food and buying the prescribed medication.

Perce

Reply to
Percival P. Cassidy

and Canada just next door

I wouldn't drive with someone in the middle of the front seat. as far as I was concerned those big 50s/60s cars were for 5 and todays Corolla can seat 5.

Reply to
who

Yes, the costs are spread out over the entire population, plus every other western nation spends less per capita on health care than the US.

Part of the cost is insurance companies spend money for people to find ways to deny claims. Doctors spend money handling all the paperwork and hassle of dealing with insurance companies.

Medicare has significantly less overhead than private insurance companies.

Reply to
Lloyd

Some info on how other countries handle health care:

Sick Around the World

formatting link
====================================================================

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems

formatting link
"The world health report 2007 - A safer future: global public health security in the 21st century"

Full report download as a .pdf file:

formatting link
(4.15MB) ====================================================================

Healthcare For All: In Western Europe Its a Reality

formatting link
France: Health Care for All
formatting link
Germany: Health Care for All
formatting link
Great Britain: Health Care for All
formatting link
Netherlands: Health Care for All
formatting link
Switzerland: Health Care for All
formatting link
=====================================================================

Health Care: An International Comparison

formatting link
Netherlands' Health Care Reflects National Values
formatting link
Keeping German Doctors On A Budget Lowers Costs
formatting link
France At Forefront Of Free, Innovative Cancer Care
formatting link
While the U.S. Spends Heavily on Health Care, a Study Faults the Quality
formatting link
After-Hours Doctor Calls Save Holland Money
formatting link

Reply to
Jim Higgins

Hah. You could achieve practically any order you wanted simply by how you define the criteria and the weighting factor you decided to place on the given criteria or by using other criteria. I looked at the linked spread sheet. "Performance - On level of health" - Canada 35, U.S. 72? Please!

"Overall goal attainment". What the heck does that mean - how is that defined? Is it that country's goals or come U.N defined goals?

"Responsiveness Level" - U.S. 1, Canada 7-8 - how much was that factor weighted in the overall score?

"Overall health system performance" - U.S. 37, Canada 30. LOL! Again, how was each factor weighted in that calculation (if it even was a calculation - they do not show the overall formula - which formula obviously was arbitrary anyway).

What a (typical U.N.) joke. Probably done by the IPCC "scientists".

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Reply to
Bill Putney

You have a conclusion you have already arrived at. Pity you choose to alter facts to fit your conclusion. Your loss.

Reply to
Jim Higgins

So where specifically did I go wrong in what I said? What facts did I alter? Let's see - oh that's right - none. Or would you like to list them? Didn't think so. Sounds like you just rattled off your pat answer for anyone who disagrees with you. For example: "Your loss". My loss how?

Everything I said is true. The criteria by which they arrived at their conclusions are arbitrary. Re-define the criteria (assuming you can even tell what their criteria mean), and/or apply different weighting factors, and the results would be totally different. But you won't argue that, because - guess what - you are the one who believes what you are told without really analyzing it - as you've just proven.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Reply to
Bill Putney

Sad.

Reply to
Jim Higgins

Can't stand to have any discussion of substance can you. Can't blame you. You're coming from a position of weakness, so best for you just to duck the question. You have a nice evening.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Reply to
Bill Putney

Interesting that Frontline did not look at Canada as part of that comparison...

Reply to
MoPar Man

They didn't look at Australia either. So...?

Perce

Reply to
Percival P. Cassidy

PBS is an American public television network that produces content for it's American audience.

Australia is further away from the USA (geographically, socially, economically) than Canada is.

The inclusion of Canada in that comparison would have been more relavent to the US viewing audience than the inclusion of Australia, and arguably would have been the most relevant comparison vs all the other included countries.

Interesting that I have to point out such basic facts to you.

Reply to
MoPar Man

The lack of interior width in newer vehicles is NOT related to thicker doors, speficically, but narrower outside sheetmetal. If you look at a bare door shell on almost any new vehicle, you might see that it's about the same thickness as a 1950 Ford or Dodge or Chevy or GMC pickup truck, but lighter.

The new Toyota Tundra pickup's center front seat seating position, considering how high the center floor hump is, looks to be comfortably habitable for small children. This is "changing things"? Of course, ANY manufacurer-designated seating position has come with seat belts since the middle 1960s.

I believe that if you check the "curb weight, unladen" of the GM Acadia-type vehicle, you'll find that it's not that much less than a Chevy Tahoe. Only fuel economy differences is the engine and the aerodynamics, but the Tahoe is more geared for towing things than the Acadia-type vehicles (which are the latest evolution of the minivan-type vehicles).

Renting a truck, just TRY that sometimes! Few rental companies have very many light duty pickups in their rental fleets. Enterprise is the main one, but getting one from their local neighborhood locations can be "a trick". You can go to one of their larger airport locations and make a reservation for one a week in advance, but that's no guarantee that you can get one--been there, done that, several times with limited success. Others that are more truck-oriented and do commercial fleets might be a better choice, but you'll end up with a more "work truck" than "fancy truck". Also expect to PAY for this, too. Sure, less expensive than monthly payments on one, but still not inexpensive.

In the parts of the country which are experiencing housing growth, the necessity of having a truck-chassis-based vehicle in the driveway can be important to haul things from Home Depot or Lowes. Trying to coordinate these activities around the availability of a rental truck for the weekend (rather than a "by the hour" rental from some of the home improvement stores) can mean the difference between getting a project done or not. Not everybody is in that situation nor can a Honda Ridgeline do all that a Silverado do, in many situations, with equivalent fuel mileage.

I don't know that Toyota has many "exciting" vehicles in their product portfolio, per se. Some have desireable attributes, but "exciting" doesn't usually come into that spectrum, by observation. Similar with Honda. Nissan, is a different story!

I know that many perceive they "need" a truck when they don't, just as some who do could never use a crossover or smaller car-based vehicle as an alternative choice. A "truck-chassis-based" vehicle might never get

30mpg on gasoline, but many Dodge Cummins diesels have been known to hit middle 20s on the highway in prior models. It all depends upon how it's geared and with 500+ lbs/ft of TORQUE, aerodynamics will not be a serious consideration, typically, when its cruising down the highway and not towing something.

Not everybody that has a truck might need one except occasionally, but when they need it, they NEED it. In Texas, trucks ARE a viable family car (as they have been for the past 60+ years), even before the extended cab or factory-produced 4-door pickups were available.

If somebody has the financial means to afford a truck-based vehicle, let them do it (whether the home owners association likes it or not). Trying to deal with owning one in downtown Manhattan might be a pain, but the whole nation is not "Manhattan".

If anybody was concerned about "gas guzzling pickup trucks", they should have been worrying about it 30 years ago when many 1-ton trucks did good to get 10mpg running empty on the highway. But they needed those trucks to make their living and fuel was less expensive then.

As for people who "key" Hummers, it should be noted that to repaint one puts more VOCs into the atmosphere than about 100K miles worth of driving one. They might not be really fuel efficient, but vandalizing one on that issue and not considering what might come later with the repaint and additional VOCs is somewhat short-sighted IF the reason it was done was "environmental consciousness".

Regards,

C-BODY

Reply to
C-BODY

If you might STUFF 5 "normal USA citizens" into a Toyota Corolla, if there is any significant deflection of the doors from some outside force, somebody inside's going to get hurt . . . or squshed. Just because there might be 5 sets of seat belts doesn't mean 5 adults can be in there comfortable for any amount of time.

It was NO problem to comfortably put six "normal USA citizens" into any full size Plymouth or Chevy or Ford up until they started downsizing the platforms in the middle 1970s. What we are calling "full size" is really the same as the "intermediates" of the 1970s in outside and interior seating space--think '68 Plymouth Belvedere or Dodge Coronet. If you look at the real cargo space in almost any modern SUV, it's not that much different than the trunk space of those same Chrysler B-body cars from back then (similar with Ford and GM cars, too)--except that it's stacked vertically rather than horizontally.

Where's a '66 Dodge Dart product line-up, but with modern feedback fuel injection and related emissions hardware, when you need it?

C-BODY

Reply to
C-BODY

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.