Why a GM Bankruptcy Would Be a Disaster

It's about time somebody woke up and wrote an unbiased article. Funny how these guys on Wall Street (who by the way are on the golf course as I type this- 1152 hours on a friday- and still getting paid from our commissions and bloated fees) continuously bash unions. CB, what do these creeps know about what it's like be a union worker?
 
The Wall Street Journal
Opinion
May 11, 2009
How Ford Restructured Without Federal Help

The company is now at a disadvantage to its less prudent rivals.



By PAUL INGRASSIA

Dearborn, Mich.

You're forgiven if you think the Chrysler Bailout is a hot new car that competes with another model called the GM Rescue. Then there is the Ford Forgo, brought to us by the only Detroit auto maker to forgo government assistance, at least so far.

That's good for the taxpayers and for Ford, right? Well, maybe not. While General Motors and Chrysler will emerge from the government restructuring wringer with significantly reduced debt, Ford will still likely be obliged to repay its lenders. This could put Ford at a competitive disadvantage -- an unfortunate irony for the one Detroit car company that has gotten the decisions mostly right in the last few years.



Ford also might emerge from the current crisis as the largest American auto maker for the first time in more than 80 years. GM had 18.6% of the market in the first quarter of this year to Ford's 14.7%. But GM's lead could be wiped out when the company sheds four or five brands to satisfy President Barack Obama's automotive task force.

True, "Largest American Car Company" might by a pyrrhic title these days. Ford just posted a $1.4 billion loss for the first quarter of 2009, after cumulative losses of $30 billion for the prior three years. During those same three years, however, Ford revamped its product offerings to the point where it soon will have a coherent lineup for the first time in a decade. That's a big turnabout for a company whose auto lineup was so unappealing a few years ago that it almost abandoned cars entirely to focus on SUVs and trucks.

In Ford's last big comeback, its midsize sedan, the Taurus, popularized aerodynamic styling and became the best-selling car in America in the mid-1990s.

What happened next would be criminal, except there aren't laws against corporate stupidity. Ford didn't invest to keep the Taurus competitive. Then it announced in 2004 it would kill the Taurus name -- until new CEO Alan Mulally ordered a stay of execution two years later.

The 2010 Taurus, which debuts next month, is a brand new start with sharp styling and the same $25,995 base price as the old, lackluster model. For more money you can add high-tech gadgetry such as forward-looking radar, adaptive cruise control, and a collision-warning system that applies the brakes when you get too close to the car in front of you. Together, these gizmos will allow you to drive from Detroit to Chicago without hitting either the brake or the accelerator. (I wouldn't suggest trying it, however.)

Ford's new Fusion Hybrid, meanwhile, gets 41 miles to the gallon in the city, versus 33 mpg for the Toyota Camry hybrid (with a similar price tag). The difference comes from lots of little things. Ford narrowed the slots on the wheel covers and changed the design of the fog lights, for example, to reduce aerodynamic drag.

Ford announced last week that it's reconfiguring a truck plant in Wayne, Mich., to build the new Focus compact. And a year from now the high-mileage subcompact Fiesta, engineered in Europe, will hit these shores. The Fiesta trails the Honda Civic and the Toyota Yaris in its time of entry to the U.S. market, but the vehicle's sleek styling will make it the best-dressed girl at the dance.

All this begs the question: How did the company develop all these new cars while losing so much money in recent years? The simple answer is that it borrowed billions from private lenders.

In late 2006, shortly after Mr. Mulally arrived from Boeing, the company mortgaged its factories, its equipment, and its real estate. Much of the impetus for this fund raising came from the company's now-departed chief financial officer, Don LeClair, whose pessimistic prognostications irked his colleagues but who proved prescient nonetheless. The company raised $23.6 billion -- the world's largest "home-improvement loan," as Ford officials said at the time -- to finance a complete product overhaul. That's right. There's wasn't a dime of government assistance.

Rival GM also raised money in 2006. Instead of mortgaging assets, however, the company sold 51% of its GMAC financial-services arm to Cerberus (the same private-equity firm that bought Chrysler a year later).
GMAC is now a bank holding company -- and it is reeling from losses of billions of dollars in the subprime mortgage market. GM, meanwhile, burned through its money faster than Ford, which was making tough decisions that GM ducked. Specifically, Ford sold off such cash-draining operations as Jaguar and Land Rover, while GM held on to its outmoded lineup of eight different U.S. brands. As a result, its standout cars -- such as the Chevy Malibu and Cadillac CTS -- got lost in the clutter.

Last week, GM reported a $6 billion loss for the first quarter. The company wants to wipe away 90% of its $27 billion in unsecured debt as part of its path to viability. But to do that it will almost certainly have to follow Chrysler into bankruptcy court. That will be the cleanest and quickest way for GM to get relief from obligations that it can't afford to meet. Beyond this, GMAC's status as a bank holding company qualifies it for government assistance that Ford's lending arm, Ford Motor Credit, can't get.

You can see where this leaves us. Ford has about $26 billion in automotive debt -- about the same as GM's $27 billion. Ford's debt is secured by its assets. And secured lenders must be repaid -- unless they happen to be Chrysler lenders and get clipped by a company bankruptcy plan that's backed by President Obama.

So Ford is like a homeowner who planned prudently and can pay his mortgage, while his spendthrift neighbors get their mortgage reduced by some new federal program.

Ford executives are probably fretting about this, but there isn't much that can be done. They already have exchanged some of their debt for equity, and might do more of that. But the bottom line is that we live in a world where wisdom can be punished and where foolishness can be rewarded.
Ford certainly wouldn't want to trade places with GM or Chrysler right now. Let's just leave it at that.

Mr. Ingrassia, a former Dow Jones executive and Detroit bureau chief for this newspaper, is writing "Crash Course," a book about the auto industry's crisis that will be published next year by Random House.
 
It's about time somebody woke up and wrote an unbiased article. Funny how these guys on Wall Street (who by the way are on the golf course as I type this- 1152 hours on a friday- and still getting paid from our commissions and bloated fees) continuously bash unions. CB, what do these creeps know about what it's like be a union worker?

Bullitt,

I doubt if only a handful know what it's like to actually work a physical labor job, that you'd have to hose the dirt off ya at the end of the day. :laugh:

CB
 
This whole GM thing breaks my heart. I realize how GM's food chain sustains life throughout our economy, but the older I get, the more I see how government intervention only causes more problems than it solves.

Poor management, and forethought should not be rewarded. :(
 
Is this a chapter 11 situation that GM can emerge from or are we talking about GM going bye, bye......
 
Delta has emerged from 2 or 3 chapter 11's and remained functioning........Is chapter 11 a good way to bust unions.....i know delta basically forced the pilots union into big concessions going into chapter 11.
 
Delta has emerged from 2 or 3 chapter 11's and remained functioning........Is chapter 11 a good way to bust unions.....i know delta basically forced the pilots union into big concessions going into chapter 11.

I feel if the unions chops were busted at the facility i work at and people were paid less than area rate ..probably have a dramatic reactions as well., in reality which of the two is the biggest Sham?
 
Well maybe GM can emerge from chapter 11 a more fit company able to compete and produce a viable product.....lets hope.
 
So Ford is like a homeowner who planned prudently and can pay his mortgage, while his spendthrift neighbors get their mortgage reduced by some new federal program.

But (IMO) this ain't right no matter how you look at it.
 
Time for a flashback.

The year was 1971.

Honda introduced it's very first car to the American Market- it costs $1,545.







And the first dealerships?
We should have known.

They were just outside Washington D.C.: at Rosenthals' Chevrolet/Honda in Arlington VA:




 
James48843 - You're my resident Union expert, so I'll pose the question to you. Concerning the UAW vote yesterday concerning GM, wherein 74% of the UAW folks voted in favor of an amended agreement with GM, my first inclination was to wonder why the other 26% didn't also vote in favor of it. On its surface it appears as if 1/4 of the UAW are a bunch of ingrates who would rather see the entire company go down in flames than compromise to enable both the company and the workers to survive to work another day. What am I missing here? What are the underlying issues here that would provide a reasonable explanation to someone like me who's looking into the situation from the outside, as to why the vote wasn't closer to 100%?
 
James48843 - You're my resident Union expert, so I'll pose the question to you. Concerning the UAW vote yesterday concerning GM, wherein 74% of the UAW folks voted in favor of an amended agreement with GM, my first inclination was to wonder why the other 26% didn't also vote in favor of it. On its surface it appears as if 1/4 of the UAW are a bunch of ingrates who would rather see the entire company go down in flames than compromise to enable both the company and the workers to survive to work another day. What am I missing here?

A couple reasons:

You are missing that the 26% who voted NO are likely the ones that will be losing their jobs entirely as a part of the agreement. The agreement includes permanently ending the employment of an additional 21,000 workers, and shutting down 14 more plants. That's on top of the job cuts announced earlier.

In 2007, there were 71,000 UAW workers who voted significant contract concessions, including a landmark agreement to relieve the company of the retiree health care burden, putting retiree health care into a VEBA run by the Union, instead of GM. The story then told to them was if they gave concessions then (in 2007), then they would be in a position to continue to have jobs, and there would be health care into retirement for them. It was a very big conession for them then, and they voted in favor of giving up concessions in order to save the company and move forward.

In 2007- GM promised to fund the VEBA with cash staring in 2009.

Guess what- It's now 2009- the cash is due , and GM has no cash, so no money for the VEBA.

Now there are only about 53,000 UAW workers left, and many of them felt betrayed by Union leadership in giving away retiree health care obligations in the 2007 contract. Now they are being told that these additional concessions are the only thing that will save the company. But the trade-off is all those who were laid off under the prior contract terms now will cease to be on the list for recall, and are flat gone. No retirement chances, no health care, no extra unemployment benefits. For a lot of people, that is one concession vote too many. Hence the 26% no vote.

Bottom line- for them, a yes vote would have been knowing voting to end their own jobs. Why vote yes when it means that your relationship with the employer totally ends? What is there to lose for them, for voting no? Nothing.

Make sense?
 
Last edited:
58 Michigan dealers axed

Exec gets into details as automakers justify closures to Congress

David Shepardson / Detroit News Washington Bureau

Washington -- General Motors Corp. disclosed Friday it will close 58 dealers in Michigan, as top executives from GM and the Chrysler Group LLC sought to explain the closings of more than 2,200 dealerships to a skeptical congressional committee.

During more than four hours of testimony, GM President and CEO Fritz Henderson and Chrysler Deputy CEO Jim Press defended their decisions to drastically pare back their dealer networks.

GM said reducing its dealers by up to 2,600 by the end of next year will save the company more than $2.5 billion a year. Chrysler won permission from a bankruptcy court to shed 789 dealers -- or 25 percent of its dealer network -- on Tuesday, and the dealers closed the same day.

"This has been the most difficult part of executing our plan: the human story of the people who are affected by the painful but necessary actions," Henderson said.

Press said closings are "gut-wrenching, but it was an absolutely necessary part of our effort to assure the long-term viability of the new Chrysler Group."

GM has sent letters to about 1,400 dealers it is seeking permission to close in bankruptcy court. The automaker expects another 1,280 dealers will voluntarily stop selling during the next year. Some of those include Saturn and Hummer dealers who will be off GM's rolls after the final sale of those brands.

GM has received 856 appeals from dealers it wants to close, and the company has reversed itself on 45. A total of 99 percent of continuing dealers have accepted agreements with the automaker; 96 percent of the 1,400 dealers that GM wants to close have agreed to a wind-down plan.
By contrast, Chrysler closed dealers just 26 days after it notified them of its plan. Chrysler offered no appeal process and no money to closing dealers.

GM is offering up to $1 million for each closing dealer as part of its wind-down agreements. GM also agreed to make changes to its agreements with its continuing dealers to win their support. While closing GM dealers will have until late 2010 to close, they will not be able to order 2010 model cars starting this fall.

Press noted that the average Chrysler dealer sold just 405 vehicles, compared with more than 1,200 for Toyota and Honda Motor Co. dealers. About half of the closed Chrysler dealers sold fewer than 100 vehicles each last year. The 789 dealerships accounted for just 14 percent of company sales.

GM said a majority of its dealerships are unprofitable.
Bankruptcy allows automakers to cancel unprofitable contracts. Dealers are normally protected by state laws. GM had to spend nearly $2 billion to buy out its Oldsmobile dealers after it discontinued the brand in 2004.

GM disclosed the state-by-state breakdown of 1,323 dealerships it plans to close by the end of the year -- including nearly 20 percent of GM's 298 Michigan dealers -- the sixth-highest in any state.
Alaska is the only state that escaped the ax.
Pennsylvania will lose 90 dealers -- the most of any state -- out of its 370 dealers. That's nearly 25 percent. The names and communities haven't been made public.



GM revealed the criteria it used in selecting closing dealers:
• 50 percent of the rating was based sales performance.
• 30 percent was customer satisfaction.
• Profitability and capitalization each counted for 10 percent.
Dealers whose score was less than 70 got termination notices.

Another 400 GM dealerships that sold 50 or fewer vehicles a year also got closing notices. Some selling non-GM brands lost their dealerships even if they had higher scores, as did dealers with brands that are being phased out, such as Pontiac. GM has given its surviving dealers until Dec. 31 to shed the other brands.

The testimony came before a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee chaired by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Menominee.

A House bill introduced this week to reverse the closing decisions now has 105 co-sponsors, including House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.
Dealers donate millions to members of Congress and carry significant political clout in Washington. The Obama administration is worried that the bill could gain steam and win passage.

House members emotionally defended hometown dealers.


Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., said the decision to close a GM dealership in Burns, Ore., will force customers to travel three hours and 136 miles to Payette, Idaho, to get to the nearest GM dealership.

"That's the equivalent of driving from Philadelphia to Washington, D.C.," Walden said, adding that the dealership closings could cost 190,000 jobs.

More: http://www.detnews.com/article/20090613/AUTO01/906130324/58+Michigan+dealers+axed
 
GM slashes pensions at the top

David Shepardson and Robert Snell / The Detroit News

Washington -- General Motors Corp. is making dramatic reductions in the pensions of some of its outgoing high-level executives -- a move that is expected to cost ousted CEO Rick Wagoner up to $15 million.
GM President and CEO Fritz Henderson confirmed Friday that pensioners whose yearly payments are $100,000 or less will lose nothing.
But those who get more will receive a third of what they had expected in excess of $100,000. No one is likely to lose as much as Wagoner, who was fired more than two months ago by President Barack Obama.

The pension announcement came as yet another high-profile GM executive, Global Purchasing Group Vice President Bo Andersson, announced he is leaving.

Andersson, 53, will pursue other career opportunities, joining a growing list of departures that includes product czar and Vice Chairman Bob Lutz, who is leaving at the end of the year, and Cadillac chief Mark McNabb, who resigned last month.

Andersson joined GM in 1987 as a manager at Swedish brand Saab AB. He also served as executive director of purchasing of electrical and chemical commodities. He was vice president of purchasing in GM's European operations.

Andersson was appointed to his current post in December 2001 and became a group vice president in 2007.

Wagoner, 56, a 32-year veteran of GM, had a pension with total accrued benefits of $22.1 million as of Dec. 31. The pension is to be paid in five annual payments of $4.52 million, with the first monthly installment due upon his retirement.

Wagoner also is owed a $68,900 annual pension. If he is docked two-thirds of the pension beyond the first $100,000 in his combined pensions, the former GM boss would lose $2.99 million a year for five years -- or almost $15 million.

More: http://www.detnews.com/article/20090613/AUTO01/906130322
 
Back
Top