Whoee!
The homebuilders want a bailout, with the government offering to guarantee low interest mortgages and a $22,000 tax reduction incentive for homebuyers. Outrageous.
Next ought to be a bailout for underemployed management consultants.
It makes just as much sense.
Who is on your "top ten" list of bailout targets.
A monolith is a geological feature, such as a mountain, consisting of a single massive stone or rock
In some respects, the
However, that is where the monolith ends. When considering rescue (or bailout) of the industry –each company’s situation is quite different.
GM, for example, has an approximately 22% share of the US market, is using cash at a very rapid rate; is almost bankrupt; has an impossibly limited lineup of vehicles consumers want; has high labor costs and high legacy costs. Already obtained autoworkers union concessions will allow savings in long term, but the kproblem is not long term, it is now. GM quality is low compared to most imported vehicles and to Ford. From an outside perspective, Rick Wagoner, its CEO, seems almost detached from the reality of current conditions.
Ford, on the other hand, with market share of approximately 16%, has reported cash reserves to last it for six months to a year. although Ford may face bankruptcy, its situation is not as dire as that of GM. Ford has introduced small, fuel efficient, cars (Focus and Fiesta) that consumers seem to like. Ford quality is almost to the level of imports. Ford CEO Alan Mulally joined the company from a career outside the automotive industry, and appears willing to, and is changing, the business model. Were it not for the credit crunch and the recession, Ford could have reached profitability in the near future.
Chrysler (10% to 11% market share) is the anomaly in the industry. Ownership of the corporation is private, unlike public companies Ford and GM. Available analyses indicate Chrysler has no cutting-edge designs or potential big sellers in its Chrysler, Dodge or Jeep brands. There will be no company rescue from vehicle sales – what models they will sell in the future remains a mystery. Chrysler quality is low. The situation at Chrysler is grim.
So, what are the solutions?
Bankruptcy with management change seems the only reasonable solution for GM. Bankruptcy will allow relief from high labor cost, legacy costs and other contractual situations (dealerships.) The government can provide post-petition financing, allowing time for the reorganization. The cost to the government will be far lower than if it provided funds to rescue GM with its present management and business model. As to the problem of the lack of small, fuel-efficient cars, perhaps GM can buy basic models from other manufactures, create its own trim packages, and have something to sell during the time it will take to bring GM small cars onto the market. Some ideas from the two previous postings on this blog could help too.
For Ford, the government’s rescue makes sense. The company is poised for profitability. If credit becomes more available, Ford will sell vehicles. They will continue to revise their business model for greater profitability. All the government will need to do is keep Ford supported for the interim. Loans or loan guarantees seem best.
Chrysler is a lost cause. Reducing the size of the company to a much smaller one, with limited vehicle models and market share, could work. Breaking up the company by selling brands and the factories to build them is another thought. The private owners of Chrysler took an enormous risk when the bought the company. Had the economy not sagged (collapsed) they might have won the bet. Now it looks like they lost. Government intervention with Chrysler makes no sense.
Let me know what you think by sending your comments.
Note: The last two articles meant to elicit comments from readers, and succeeded in doing so. Some comments were serious, some in jest.
What do you think?
HAVE A GREAT THANKSGIVING!
This follow-up article is a reply to the question asked, “How can we do it?”
As to the other part of the comment about political courage; among current leaders there is not enough to take action such as suggested here. Perhaps Barack Obama will have it….
Your comments are encouraged and all are welcome – pro and con.
To bailout, or not bailout, that is the question.
On the one hand, some say the loss of jobs in the industry and related fields would cripple an already weakened economy. The ripple effect would be enormous: auto parts makers and auto dealers are the obvious; the trickle down effect is not so obvious, but towns, families, retailers, etc. would suffer.
On the other hand, some say the foreign auto producers will step into the gap left by the demise of the American auto companies, and the effect of the demise will not be such a disaster. In addition, with millions of US cars on the market, parts and service requirements will continue for many years. All we would really lose, in the long term, are the profits that the car companies might generate and keep in this country. That may all be true, but no one mentions the timing. It will take years for auto production in this country to rebound, regardless of who is making the cars.
Lastly, is $25 billion dollars enough or will the car people come back for more? At the rate they are burning cash, probably the latter.
Therefore, here is a more complete new thought.
Rather than loan or invest billions in Ford, GM and Chrysler, why not quickly nationalize them, removing management, installing new people, new energy, new thinking, a new model for doing business, and possibly even new pay rates and health insurance and retirement plans, and get on with the job. Bring in a Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, or one of hundreds more innovative thinkers to lead the charge. Use the $25 billion to create new, trim, companies rather than propping up old stale ones. Along that line, fire the entire core of lobbyist, especially those who fight against higher fuel efficiency standards.
That sounds very easy. Obviously, it is not. Here is a blueprint that might work if given a chance.
Consider the GM situation. GM stock is hovering slightly above $3.00 a share, and the capitalization of GM is somewhere near $3 billion. For the plan, have the company create a new class of voting stock and let the government buy $5 billion to $10 billion worth. The funds go to GM for immediate use. At the same time, voting the new shares, completely replace the GM Board of Directors. Get new people; with no auto industry experience; with creative minds; not willing to work the old, failed model; and let them go to work. Replace the current executive staff without bonuses. Let the lawyers begin!
Bring the best and the brightest to the Board and the executive ranks to lead the company. Develop a new model for doing business. Perhaps the DELL model of building to order, having dealers only to provide a few demo cars, take orders, and supply parts and service. Without saying, “It won’t work,” say, “It is a good idea, let’s make it work.” If not that though, what others ideas are there? Remember, the old model failed.
Here is another thought: Rather than manufacturing so much of the vehicle let others do so. Become a design and marketing organization. Buy engines from someone else – Honda, for example. Transmissions from another source. Fit the cars together in less than a year rather than taking two or three years to bring a new model to market. Alternatively, buy immediately salable cars from other manufacturers, customized to be the GM model. That is certainly not a new idea. Think about the Isuzu Rodeo and the Honda Passport of a few years ago. Honda sold Passports by the thousands. It was not a Honda vehicle though; Isuzu built a Rodeo, changed the trim and interior, sold it to Honda and then Honda sold it as a Passport. There are other examples.
Get vehicles with fuel-efficient engines on the market in a hurry. Give GM and/or its dealers something to sell.
Fuel-efficient small cars, and hybrids, have proven themselves as sellers in the market. There are more than a million of
Get vehicles selling and cash flowing. Then, when operations are stable, start investing in research, development and design. At this moment, what difference does it make who manufactures the major assemblies? Later build a goliath of an industry and be a technological leader. There is no time now.
With no lobbyist fighting to keep fuel efficiency requirements low, the government can move forward with stringent regulation to reduce carbon emissions. In spite of what the auto companies and the oil companies have said, global warming is real. Let the bailed out auto industry be the leader in reducing carbon emissions, not the fighter against reduction.
There are many creative geniuses in our country. Let them “have at” the auto industry. Forget the words, “We have never done it that way,” or “We tried it once and it did not work,” or, even worse, “It can’t be done.” A long time ago, people said that about landing on the moon.
Adopt the cry, “We know it will work and we can do it.”
How many years will it take to move the inertia of the auto industry to make it into something new, different, and PROFITABLE and FLOWING CASH?
Probably close to three years. On the other, without the bailout suggested here, the existing companies, working the old auto industry model, will take at least five years IF they can do it at all.
It is exciting to think about. It would be exciting to participate.
Your comments are invited.
Shakespeare might have said, "To bailout, or not to bailout, that is the question."
On the one hand, many say the loss of jobs would cripple an already weakened economy. The ripple effect would be enormous: auto parts makers and auto dealers are the obvious; the trickle down effect is not so obvious, but towns, families, retailers, etc. would suffer.
On the other hand, many say the foreign auto producers will step into the gap left by the demise of the American auto companies, and the effect will not be such a disaster. In addition, with millions of US cars on the market, parts and service requirements will continue for many years. All we would really lose, in the long term, are the profits that the car companies might generate and keep in this country. Of course, the dislocation and relocation of factories and thousands of people would be harsh.
Lastly, is $25 billion dollars enough or will the car people be back for more? At the rate they are burning cash, probably the latter.
So here is a new thought.
Rather than loan or invest these billions in Ford, GM and Chrysler, why not quickly nationalize them, removing management, installing new people, new energy, new thinking, a new model for doing business, and possibly even new pay rates and insurance and retirement plans, and get on with the job. Bring in a Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, or one of hundreds more innovative thinkers to lead the charge. Use the $25 billion to create new, trim, companies rather than propping up old stale ones. Along that line, fire the entire core of lobbyist, especially those who fight against higher fuel efficiency standards.
On that last line of thinking, could the car company disaster be similar to the financial disaster have been caused by deregulation (i.e. low fuel efficiency standards?)
Your comments are invited.
Years ago, when buying stocks, the pattern of many people was to carefully pick a target industry in which to invest, and then equally carefully pick companies within that industry that were growing or seemed poised to grow at rates faster than the general market. With this system, through the years, people made a few killings, and had a few losses, but overall created a steady and good return on their investments. Later, in managing a small 401k investment sthe process was the same, this time picking funds that were in target industries and that performed better than other funds in those industries. SGenerally the returns were better than double stock market indices growth rates. Buying in, and selling out of stocks, or more succinctly, TIMING was the key.
Some people pto them that this was not investing, it was gambling. Short selling seemed to be about the same thing; making a bet that a stock would go down, and making money when it did. It was also gambling. Sure, careful study preceded these investments, but because of the limited time period for them, it required selling on a schedule, not like longer term investments. Sometimes the timing was not favorable.
Day trading requires almost constant attention to the market, a luxury not available to most people.
Fortunately, most people did not become involved in the real estate bubble, although many did. In Phoenix, for example, there were plenty of opportunities. Property values in some areas increased 50%, or doubled, or in some cases even tripled in a year. The question was, “had the properties risen in value by the same amount as the increase in price?” It did not seem so. The great bulk of properties could earn only slightly greater rent because of higher property prices. It was apparent that properties were overvalued. (Some of this is 20/20 foresight, and some is 20/20 hindsight.)
For example, an investment group bought a nearby apartment complex with 270 units, and announced they would convert the units to condominiums. Tenants could buy their apartments at favorable prices, and a few did. After refurbishing the complex the new owners sold, in a little over two weeks, the remaining 200 or so units. Investors, not prospective tenants, bought the bulk of the condominiums. They gambled, and for the most part, they lost when the real estate bubble burst.
The same is so with most of the gamblers who expected great gains when they bought asset backed securities (derivatives), hedge funds, and other such paper instruments about which most people know nothing, or sold short, or bet on commodities, etc. In other words, they did not invest into value; they invested in paper assets. Underlying assumptions and the tacit assumptions behind them were either not investigated or ignored. Many of those paper assets disappeared, in many respects causing the mess our financial system, and our economy are in.
Here are some questions to consider. Readers say they appreciate your comments….
First, is there more benefit to the economy by investing in productive assets, such as operating companies, rather than investing into paper assets? Second, do the high-risk instruments and investments benefit our economy? Third, should we consider limiting or banning investments in paper assets and other high-risk methods of investing in the financial system?
It was only eight days ago that I posted a comment about the economy. In those eight days, worldwide financial and economic news was so bad, with massive employee layoffs, terrible earnings reports and steep stock market declines that, in my opinion, the comments in that post proved wrong. If there was an ethical way to remove those comments from the Internet, I would.
The better action, though, is to acknowledge an overreaction to the short-term developments that led to the opinion expressed. Following is a revised opinion.
Credit will slowly loosen making borrowing at all levels somewhat easier. The change will not be as fast as the Treasury and the Federal Reserve would like, but credit will slowly loosen. The Federal Reserve has started lending against commercial paper from banks and corporations, and some of the $250 billion used to capitalize banks by buying stock is deployed. Banks are slowly beginning to trust other banks – interbank loans are slowly rising. Yesterday’s news showed a rise in the rate of new home purchases, probably because cash rich buyers (there are some out there) see housing prices near the bottom of their decline. New home construction will not pick up for some time though because the inventory of unsold new homes is still high.
The Conference Board's index of consumer confidence index was just published. At 38.0, down from last month's 61.4, it is dismal. Consumer spending already is down. As consumer confidence declines, so does consumer spending. The present level of the index points to an extremely weak retail season. If gains in the stock market - up some 400 points today - continue, and gasoline prices stay down, confidence and spending will slowly return
Small business owners – hunker down. Reduce expenses as much as possible, and increase revenue if possible. Depending on the business, most of you can survive unless you are heavily in debt. If heavily in debt, have a contingency plan in mind or on paper so that if your line of credit is reduced or canceled you have a plan of action ready to go. Many options exist – take off the blinders and look at all.
I do not believe the
In this country, we will have dodged a bullet. Barely.
