current auto "bailout" - bullshit or no?

cranrab

Star
BGOL Investor
i've only read news accounts of the proposed legislation, so it does not provide verbatim text (i'm not inclined to do a full search for it yet) that congress is reviewing.

as of now, i'm inclined to say NO.

1st, the automakers admit they are in this position because of THEIR OWN MISTAKES.

2nd, the automakers want $25B to come from the $700B already allocated to the mortgage bailout. which is no longer a mortgage bailout.

3rd, how is an influx of cash to the automakers supposed to bail them out? isn't that like putting a terminally ill patient on life support? the $25B should be made available to the public to purchase automobiles, not given to entities who have already been PROVEN INCAPABLE OF RESPONSIBLY MANAGING THEIR FINANCES.

4th, fuck a henry paulson.
 
Last edited:
Alan Mulally, CEO of Ford Motor Co: "While the domestic auto industry has made mistakes in the past, the current problems have been exacerbated by one of the worst economies in nearly three decades"

Sen. Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican and a member of the committee, has called the automakers "failed models" and said they should file for bankruptcy.

Kentucky Republican Sen. Jim Bunning said, "The proposal coming before the Senate tomorrow is not a serious one."

"You cannot compare the car sector with the financial sector" Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said

Bank of America Corp's top official said that not all of Detroit's Big Three should survive. "The first thing would be that (the U.S. automakers) acknowledge that there is one too many auto companies and that consolidation needs to take place," Chief Executive Kenneth Lewis said

"The Detroit Three are rapidly running out of cash and face filing for Chapter 11 reorganization," Peter Morici, economist at the University of Maryland, testified. "It would be better to let them go through that process and re-emerge with new labor agreements, reduced debt and strengthened management."

There is also a question whether the automakers would continue their sponsorship of sporting events and whether they would rein in spending on advertising.
 
Watchin the hearing on C-Span right now. One of the senators said all three of you decided to fly in on private jets bought by your company rather than flying commercial? Why is that? Which led to the longest silence I've ever heard!! The CEOs deserve this, its just too bad the workers and taxpayers have to suffer....
Amazing how the Senate is exposing their spending dead in front of them and to the world!
 
Man, I don't what to believe. GM is only worth about 1.7 billion right now but needs about 12 billion to bailed out. That don't add up to me.
 
Man, I don't what to believe. GM is only worth about 1.7 billion right now but needs about 12 billion to bailed out. That don't add up to me.

another good point in there.

the automakers proposed that the priority for distribution of the funds should be based on which manufacturer's failure allegedly would have the greatest negative impact: GM.

but normal people questioned this, asking shouldn't the manufacturer with the greatest NEED (and therefore in the most dire position) be identified as the highest priority recipient? in that case it would be CHRYSLER.

so it makes you wonder why the automakers are so EAGER to give the MOST funds to the largest and healthiest entity, when the smallest clearly has a GREATER need.
 
The only way this bailout makes any sense is to fire all the senior management and put all the money into plants and production (engineers, designers, plant workers, not bureaucracy).

Plus, any new CEO needs to have a cap on salary, of say, $200,000.

Paying big salaries seems to be no indicator of management competence.
 
The only way this bailout makes any sense is to fire all the senior management and put all the money into plants and production (engineers, designers, plant workers, not bureaucracy).

OK. let's say the above happens.

let's further assume that as a result of the $25B bailout, a few years from now, they've developed a better, more efficient product.

but what about the immediate future? americans still can't afford to pay cash for a new automobile, and banks are still too restrictive in lending. no cars being sold, no revenue being generated, automakers continue to lose money, production falls off, plants get shut down, back to square 1. with 1 huge exception: now our pockets are $25B lighter.

it doesn't matter how sweet a ride they come up with, because if consumers can't afford to purchase the product, the manufacturer is going to go out of business.
 
i'd be more inclined to green-light $25B to be spent on transportation and infrastructure.

put $25B in repairing roads, subways, commuter trains, and buses.

let the numbers of personal vehicles, uninsured motorists and pollution start to decline.
 
As much as anyone is against the bailout of the Detroit 3 - its gonna happen. Trust me - no way the US is gonna be without carmakers.

It's part of a industrial military compex that the auto industry turns or has the capability to turn out weapons during war time.
 
OK. let's say the above happens.

let's further assume that as a result of the $25B bailout, a few years from now, they've developed a better, more efficient product.

but what about the immediate future? americans still can't afford to pay cash for a new automobile, and banks are still too restrictive in lending. no cars being sold, no revenue being generated, automakers continue to lose money, production falls off, plants get shut down, back to square 1. with 1 huge exception: now our pockets are $25B lighter.

it doesn't matter how sweet a ride they come up with, because if consumers can't afford to purchase the product, the manufacturer is going to go out of business.

I find this a remarkable sentiment since Obama (and the Democrats) supported giving the Wall Street leeches $700 Billion plus $150 billion plus ....

to the tune of $2 trillion dollars without producing a single thing of value to anyone!

It seems, only wasteful, do-nothings in Washington and Wall Street get money, not the people who actually produce REAL PRODUCTS!

i'd be more inclined to green-light $25B to be spent on transportation and infrastructure.

put $25B in repairing roads, subways, commuter trains, and buses.

let the numbers of personal vehicles, uninsured motorists and pollution start to decline.

You make a good point. Roads, subways, and trains are REAL, TANGIBLE GOODS!

Wall Street is fantasy land... a glorified casino!

However, whenever you give the government massive amounts of spending power, the corruption/waste is mind-boggling.

At least with the Big 3 automakers, there is some sense of accountability.

Actually, I trust them more than Wall Street and Washington DC to handle money and provide REAL goods.

As much as people piss on the Big 3, almost everyone would drive one of their cars.
 
The only way this bailout makes any sense is to fire all the senior management and put all the money into plants and production (engineers, designers, plant workers, not bureaucracy).

bingo!
but will that happen is the quesiton.

i heard on cnn yesterday that when the big CEO's had their meeting with congress this past week.....one of the congressmen asked them if they really needed a bailout...because all of them flew into washington on very expensive private jets. then he proceeded to ask them to raise their hands if any of them planned to sell their jets once they left the meeting...in order to get their biznesses back on track. none raised their hands.

considering how GM, Ford etc. knew a economic crisis was coming and basically had the money and technology to build more fuel efficient cars way before all this BS started happening, but they chose to continue making big ass SUV's and and other cheaply made expensive cars, shows you that they were only looking out for themselves.

now that their in trouble..they want US to bail them out.
and instead of blaiming themselves for their fuck ups...their trying to blame the gas prices and eveything else....lol

are we to blame for the mentality of the CEO's?
i mean was it basially supply and demand?
Most people around the world know that most Amercians live beyond their means.
no matter how much we suffer financially...we always find ways to blow money on shit that we either dont need or really cant efford...right?
:dunno:

part of me says fuck em........because of the lack of trust i have for them.
but the other half says give them the money, because if you dont, millions will lose their jobs.
and im not just talking about the people in the auto industry.
because a lot of the parts used to make their cars are not even made by GM, ford etc...... theyre brought from other biznesses.

i know Obama promised those workers help...but i think they need new leadership first.
 
Last edited:
893-aria081119.slideshow_main.prod_affiliate.91.jpg


- Robert Ariail / The State (Columbia, S.C.) November 19, 2008

`
 
As much as anyone is against the bailout of the Detroit 3 - its gonna happen. Trust me - no way the US is gonna be without carmakers.

If there is no bailout and they are forced to go through Chapter 11, there will still be US car makers when the process is over. Maybe not all 3, or more than likely they will be smaller companies than they are now, but they will still exist. The infrastructure (manufacturing plants etc) is not going anywhere, and there will always be a demand for new cars; what is needed is cars that people want to buy.

The companies have to restructure, they need to trim the fat. Part of that is the unions with their attendant high labour costs etc, part of it is high CEO pay etc; there are many factors.

Has anyone heard of any specific changes that the Big 3 have pledged to make if they get the $25B? If not, what is the sense of giving them so much (taxpayers) money if they are going to continue business as usual?

Sometimes, Chapter 11 can be a good thing.
 
If this were any other time... I would say let the big 3 go into bankruptcy so that they can restructure.

But with this "perfect storm" of an economy..... we can't allow the big 3 to go under RIGHT NOW.

also GM is a USA defense contractor...so you already know the deal :rolleyes:

But like an earlier poster said.. $25 Billion is the equivalent of a PAYDAY LOAN for the big 3. In order for them to really gain the money necessary to retool.. I would think the REAL NUMBER that they need would be closer to the $300 - $400 Billion range LONG TERM.


Plus who the fuck right now can afford $45K for a Chevy Volt?
 
the reality is that we cannt let them fail

i dont think we should help them as much as the next person...but i think too many people will suffer from the greed of the 3 ceos

the gov't has to be careful with this...if they hand over 700billion dollar check like they did with the banks it will set a dangerous precedence for other companies

the gov't should make future bailouts so painful and difficult for these companies that they would not WANT the govt's help...and now is a good time to start

there needs to complete transparency and specific guidelines on how this money is used

for example...a specific deadline for more fuel efficient cars or cars that use alternative energy

see if these automakers were smart they should have went to the oil companies for a bailout:lol:
 
Video - Breaking News : CNN Auto industry bailout

<object width="450" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/e/efd_1227204510"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/e/efd_1227204510" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="450" height="370"></embed></object>
:angry:
 
Maybe I'm missing something here but I remember the automakers asking for loans, not really a "bailout". They need to get financing from somewhere. The banks are all tapped out.

banks are not tapped out. they're just more skeptical. after all, would you lend money to a business who is admittedly failing and has a losing track record in recent terms?

as for the question of whether or not this is a bailout, watch some of the video links posted here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27766792/
 
`

Well, looks like the big GM Execs flew in on their Big Chariots, apparently not realizing the time of day, or, the mood of the country, or, the mood of Congress - with respect to extravagance, especially when you have you hand out for . . . Billions, needed or not. :hmm:

And, the big GM Execs, begging hands outstretched, didn't even bring with them on the Big Chariots they rode into town on -- a "Plan" to cut their excesses and bring their industry into viability and competitive-reality. :smh:

So, without a "Plan" and without at least appearing to "Fall on their Own Swords" -- looks like for now, at least, Congress "Bailed" on the Big GM Execs. :cool:


- - - - - - - - -


Doesn't this point out that there is a middle ground between (a) and outright unconditional taxpayer-bailout of the GM and/or the Big 3 - and - (b) leaving them to fend for themselves at possibly certain bankruptcy and the downside it could bring??? That is, Come back to town, without the Big Chariots (or at least ride on the Chariots that everyone else does), and come with a "Real Plan" with real goals, real sacrifices, and real conditions, that accomplish much of what bankruptcy could/would but without some of the nastier side effects -- in exchange for taxpayer assistance ???


QueEx
 
Losing 4 million manufacturing jobs doesn't help in the name of 'free' trade. We are protectionist with immigration, but not with our jobs.

If they go bankrupt the government will have to step in for the pension, plus all those people unemployed, drawing money for unemployment.
 
<font size="5"><Center>
Auto Bailout Accord Nearly Reached</font size>
<font size="4">
Speaker of the House's Nancy Pelosi's change
of heart could lead to a lifeline for Detroit </font size></center>


BusinessWeek
By David Kiley
December 6, 2008


Detroit automakers hoping for a government lifeline got it Friday night when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said she would support a $15 billion loan from a fund already approved by Congress aimed at retooling factories to make fuel-efficient vehicles over the next several years.

Pelosi had been against the measure, bolstered by environmental advocacy groups. Opponents were concerned that automakers would use the money for normal operations and not deliver on requirements to develop vehicles that are at least 25% more fuel-efficient than the ones they market today.

But with job losses mounting in the U.S., many members of Congress are feeling pressure not to let the automakers go bankrupt even though most of their constituents do not favor a bailout for Detroit.


<font size="3">Cascading Bankruptcies Possible</font size>

Estimates are that if one automaker went into insolvency, it would cause a cascade of bankruptcies in the auto sector that could cost up to 3 million jobs. The U.S. lost more than 500,000 jobs in November alone.

The funds that would be tapped for the car companies were appropriated in the 2007 energy bill, and were meant to be disbursed by the Energy Dept. over time as each automaker qualified for the loans. "We will not permit any funds to be borrowed from the advanced technology program unless there is a guarantee that those funds will be replenished in a matter of weeks," said Pelosi (D-Calif.). How that would be accomplished is still under debate.

It was clear on Friday, after two days of hearings in front of the Senate Banking Committee and House Financial Committee, that Congress did not have the votes to appropriate new funding for a Detroit bailout, especially during a lame-duck session.


<font size="3">Encountering "Bailout Fatigue"</font size>

Over the last month, Congress, the public, and the media have been highly critical of the way the Treasury Dept. has overseen payouts to commercial and investment banks from the $700 billion Wall Street bailout package Congress passed in October. Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services committee, said the public has "bailout fatigue."

Despite the intent of the package, which was to loosen lending to businesses and consumers, the credit markets remain tight. Banks have used the money for other functions, such as dividend payments, salaries, and even, in some cases, executive bonuses.

The automakers came to Washington asking for $34 billion, on top of the $25 billion loan package that was part of the energy bill. General Motors (GM) said it needed $4 billion by the end of the year to avert a financial meltdown, and Chrysler requested $7 billion, saying it would be at the minimum cash levels it needs to survive by the New Year. Chrysler on Friday retained a law-firm that specializes in Chapter 11 bankruptcy.


<font size="3">Vote Likely This Week</font size>

Ford (F), in a better cash position, said it could likely weather the recession in 2009 without loans, though it asked for a $9 billion line of credit as an emergency fund. Executives with knowledge of the negotiations on Friday said Ford would probably not tap the loan money Congress is likely to approve next week.

Originally, Congress said it would meet Monday to vote on a bill if one came together. The vote will now take place later in the week, assuming the language of the bill is worked out to Pelosi's liking.

Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) has maintained that the Bush White House and Treasury have had the power to release funds from the $700 billion Wall Street fund. That assertion was backed up by the Federal Comptroller last week during hearings. But the White House has argued that the bill cant be interpreted to help automakers.


<font size="3">Long-Term Restructuring Required</font size>

Congressional Republicans have also signaled for a month that the only money they would vote to the automakers would be from the energy bill fund already appropriated.

The bill that Congress is expected to vote on next week is meant to give Congress time to work out a longer-term restructuring of the U.S. auto industry with the Obama Administration that will likely result in as much as $100 billion in loans being appropriated.

That money would come from either new legislation, or a combination of funding sources including the Wall Street bailout fund, $350 billion of which Obama's White House will administer. An auto industry "trustee" is likely to be appointed to regulate the payout of the money and how it is spent.


<font size="3">Greater Oversight of Automakers </font size>

But all that help won't come without sacrifice. Company management will have to agree to tight oversight. They also will be forced to drop any opposition they have mounted in recent years to tighter fuel economy and emissions regulations. The United Auto Workers will likely have to make greater wage and benefit concessions for workers and retirees. And bond holders will likely be compelled to either write down as much as two-thirds of their investments or swap the debt for equity in the car companies.

Several Capitol Hill staffers on Friday said they also believed the government would probably try and facilitate a consolidation of GM and Chrysler, which had been talking about a merger two months ago before their financial conditions so drastically worsened.

Kiley is a senior correspondent in BusinessWeek's Detroit bureau.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily...b2008126_622881.htm?chan=rss_topStories_ssi_5
 
Let me say that this is the all-time greatest political picture I've ever seen.

s2wnf7.jpg


Anyway, about this thread, it's amazing to see so many people complaining about getting the government they wanted.
 
<font size="5"><center>Auto bailout fails </font size></center>


Reuters
Friday, December 12, 2008; 4:52 AM


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A proposed bailout of U.S. automakers failed in the Senate on Thursday night, raising the specter of an industry collapse that sent Asian markets reeling and sparked fears it could deepen the recession. "It's over with," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said of congressional efforts this year just before the Democratic proposal to extend up to $14 billion to the stricken industry fell short in voting on a procedural motion.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/12/AR2008121200343.html
 
<font size="5"><center>
Treasury sees TARP funds
for financial sector ONLY</font size></center>



Reuters
December 12, 2008


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Treasury Department maintains that a $700-billion bailout fund approved by Congress is best used in trying to stabilize the nation's troubled financial sector and a spokeswoman indicated on Thursday night that was unlikely to change. After the U.S. Senate failed late on Thursday night to reach a last-ditch compromise to help troubled U.S. automakers with $14 billion in bridge loans, calls swelled for Treasury to tap its so-called TARP, or Troubled Asset Relief Program, funds to help the auto industry.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/12/AR2008121200343.html
 
Automakers fail to cash in on big GOP donations

<font size="4"><center>
Automakers fail to cash in on big GOP donations


Since 1990, the auto industry has cut $100 million in checks
to the GOP, compared with $34 million to Democrats.
But the Big Three is snubbed on bailout.</font size></center>


Los Angeles Times
By Ken Bensinger
December 12, 2008


By standing in the way of an auto industry bailout, GOP senators appear to have bitten the hand that fed them.

Over the last decade, General Motors has given $1.50 to Republican candidates for every $1 it has given to Democrats. That same pattern has been followed by Chrysler and Ford, which year after year have favored the right side of the aisle, sometimes by more than a 3-to-1 ratio in dollar terms.

Since 1990, the auto industry as a whole -- including suppliers, dealers and manufacturers -- has cut $100 million in checks to Republicans, compared with just $34 million to Democrats.

On Thursday night, the carmakers discovered just how little loyalty that investment strategy had bought them.

Efforts to get through even a watered-down version of the $14-billion aid package were stymied by Republican senators, many of whom contend that GM and Chrysler -- the most troubled U.S. automakers -- should simply go bankrupt.


"Carmakers have always leaned Republican," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. "But it'll be interesting to see whether what happened this week changes that pattern."

Political giving from the auto industry as a whole -- including carmakers, dealers and suppliers -- has long backed candidates that favor less regulation, lower taxes and looser labor rules, among other key issues.

This year, for the first time on record, Detroit's spending slightly favored Democrats. But since 2000, overall spending by the Big Three has steered 61% of contributions, or $7.2 million, to Republicans, according to Federal Election Commission data compiled by the Center for Responsible Politics.

Democrats, meanwhile, have looked to the United Auto Workers for support. Since 2000, the union has given $12.5 million to Democrats compared with only $94,540 to Republicans.

GM, the only carmaker that could be reached for comment, downplayed the role that money may have played in the current debate.

"It's highly doubtful that political giving ever played a factor in an individual member's position," GM spokesman Greg Martin said.

But on Capitol Hill, the cold calculus of money is never too far from any issue.

A study released Thursday by the Center for Responsive Politics suggested that in the House of Representatives, where the bailout passed this week, there was a direct correlation between votes and campaign cash: Those who voted in favor of the plan received, on average, 8% more money from the auto industry than those who did not.

In the Senate, other forces may have been at play.

Some of the loudest opponents to helping Detroit were senators whose states are home to car factories of foreign brands, including Sen. Richard C. Shelby (D-Ala.), who has Mercedes, Hyundai and Honda plants in his state but no Big Three facilities.

At the eleventh hour, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) put forth a bill that sought to wrest new concessions from the United Auto Workers as well as from corporate bondholders. He has received $234,860 from the auto industry throughout his career, but Tennessee is also home to several Nissan plants and the Japanese automaker's U.S. headquarters.

"A part of this is certainly the old adage 'Where you stand is where you sit,' " said Norm Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

Representatives of the two senators could not be reached for comment.

Labor was another issue underlying the tense negotiations. An action alert circulated among Senate Republicans on Wednesday called for Republicans to "stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor."

In doing so, analysts said, Republicans were planting the seeds for a fundraising appeal to big business -- other than the Big Three, of course -- as they gear up for a major political fight next year over expected legislation that would make it easier for unions to organize.

"They may lose money from the auto industry, but a union fight will get them a lot of money from the rest of the business community," Sabato said.

A final issue was ideological, experts say. For many conservatives in Congress, the idea of government rescuing any industry is simply unpalatable -- and that trumps any contributions from Detroit.

"The tension for Republicans is that it's an industry that's been staunchly in their camp for many years, but this is legislation calling for billions of dollars of government spending," said Massie Ritsch, spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics. "It's a conflict between their principles and their longtime supporters."

Bensinger is a Times staff writer.

ken.bensinger@latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/classified/automotive/highway1/la-fi-gopcars12-2008dec12,0,7571261.story
 
<font size="5"><center>
Mixed Views On $17.4 Billion Auto Bailout</font size>
<font size="4">

As Supporters, Critics Debate Bush's Plan For Loans
To GM & Chrysler, Canada Steps Up With Package Of Its Own</font size></center>


image4137334g.jpg



CBS News
Dec. 20, 2008

CBS/AP) There's been a mixed reaction so far to President Bush's promise of $17.4 billion in loans to troubled U.S. automakers.

Congressional Republicans don't like the idea of using money from the $700 billion bailout program intended for banks and other financial firms, and the union representing autoworkers says this is too harsh on its members.

President-elect Barack Obama, praised the administration's action but warned, "The auto companies must not squander this chance to reform bad management practices and begin the long-term restructuring that is absolutely necessary to save this critical industry and the millions of American jobs that depend on it."

Obama will be free to reopen the arrangement once he takes office, if he chooses, and the head of the United Auto Workers said the union would be appealing to the new president and the strongly Democratic new Congress on that subject.

Obama was noncommittal on possible changes but said he would "make sure that when we see a final restructuring package that it's not just workers who are bearing the brunt."

Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, D., said the $17 billion loan package is "a great Christmas present, not just to the automakers but to those who supply them, representing 3 million jobs across the country.

"The reality is the auto industry touches almost every sector of the economy, whether it's steel or plastics or microchips or service industries, so this industry has to survive," she said this morning on CBS' The Early Show.

In announcing the loans on Friday, Mr. Bush said that a restructuring of the companies, in order to avoid bankruptcy and to ensure their future viability, would need to be drawn up by March 31. If they failed to do so, Mr. Bush said, they would have to repay the loans immediately.

"The time to make the hard decisions to become viable is now - or the only option will be bankruptcy," he said.

Meanwhile, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he has strong objections to President Bush's plan.

McConnell, the Senate's top-ranking Republican, said Friday he objects to tapping into the financial rescue fund to help bail out a specific industry.

Now that Mr. Bush has freed up the money from TARP for General Motors and Chrysler, McConnell says all the stakeholders need to be held to strict, date-specific requirements in turning around the auto sector. He says those changes need to involve labor and health benefits, and should be agreed to by Feb. 17.

Republican Jim Bunning, the state's other senator, echoed McConnell's objections. Bunning said a news release that using the financial rescue fund for the auto industry is an abuse of power.

Under terms of the loans, Mr. Bush said the companies' workers should agree to wage and work rules that are competitive with foreign automakers by the end of next year. And he called for elimination of a "jobs bank" program - negotiated by the UAW and the companies - under which laid-off workers can receive about 95 percent of their pay and benefits for years. This month, the UAW agreed to suspend the program.

The deal also calls for two-thirds of the automakers' debts to be converted to stock in the companies.

The government will also have the option of becoming a stockholder in the companies, much as it has with major banks, in effect partially nationalizing the industry.

UAW president Ron Gettelfinger has said he was disappointed that President Bush singled out workers when discussing concessions to be made, and that foreign auto companies would dictate the wages of UAW workers.

Granholm said the effort to restructure the automakers will require sacrifices on the part of all stakeholders, not just workers. "That is going to be a very, very tough slog, but necessary to have an auto industry in America that is vibrant.

But, Early Show anchor Erica Hill asked Granholm, can the Big Three survive without their employees making wage concessions?

"No, there has to be sacrifice on the part of everyone," Granholm said, but added, "People aren't aware that last year, the UAW entered into a very controversial contract going forward which cut in half the starting wages of those who would be employed at auto plants, from $28 an hour to $14 an hour. They offloaded all of their health care costs into a voluntary employee benefits association which was really revolutionary, too.

"They know they have to do more, but it's not just them, is the whole point. It has to be everybody who feeds into the system."


<font size="4">Canadian Prime Minister:
We're "Doing Our Share" To Aid Big Three </font size>


Meanwhile, Washington isn’t the only source of emergency funds for the ailing automotive industry.

Canada's federal government, and the government of Ontario, will provide the Canadian subsidiaries of the Detroit Three automakers with $3.29 billion in emergency loans, the prime minister said Saturday.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Canada's bailout plan - the equivalent of 20 percent of the U.S. aid package - will help keep the plants afloat while the automakers restructure their businesses to retain one the country's most important sectors.

"We cannot afford, in the United States or Canada, the catastrophic short-term collapse of the Big Three automakers. The U.S. has signaled that they are not going to allow these companies to fail, and we will do our share of the North American package to see that this doesn't happen either," said Harper speaking at a news conference in Toronto.

Canada's automotive industry represents 14 percent of the country's manufacturing output, 23 percent of manufactured exports, and directly employs more than 150,000 Canadians. The country's largest industry within the manufacturing sector, it has been suffering from its slowest sales in 26 years and dwindling operating cash.

Ontario has agree to provide 1.3 billion Canadian dollars ($1.07 billion) of the total since the province alone employs about 400,000 auto sector workers - both directly and indirectly - and the industry is the mainstay of about 12 Ontario communities.

"In Ontario, we've got thousands of people and their families who rely on the auto industry to be on firm ground, so they can put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads ... No state or province employs more workers, and we're not going to give that up," said Premier Dalton McGuinty, speaking alongside Harper Saturday.

The Canadian plan will provide General Motors Canada with loans of up to 3 billion Canadian dollars ($2.47 billion) and Chrysler Canada will receive up to 1 billion Canadian dollars ($823 million). The companies will get the money in three installments, with the first portion coming Dec. 29.

However, Harper and McGuinty stressed that the government will not be handing over blank checks, saying that all stakeholders will be expected to make adjustments to reduce structural costs.

"Canadian taxpayers expect their money will be used to restructure and renew the automotive industry in this country," said Harper. "They expect all stakeholders to come to the table and work together towards sustainable long-tern solutions to maintain our current production share of the North American market."

Harper's statement was applauded by Canadian Auto Workers President Ken Lewenza, who said the union was willing to work with industry to protect jobs.

"This will ensure that the Canadian industry is protected and the numerous investments governments have made over the years will continue to benefit our communities. This is a very sound decision on the part of both governments," said Lewenza, who has been lobbying the government to develop an aid package as soon as possible.

Harper also announced two additional steps the federal government will take to support the overall competitiveness of the auto industry. Automotive suppliers will have greater access to accounts receivable insurance through Export Development Canada to compensate for the reduced availability of credit. A new facility will also be created to support access to credit for consumers to improve the accessibility of car loans and dealer financing.

Similar to the U.S. auto bailout package, the Canadian aid package comes with strings attached, including a request that parts suppliers get the money they are owed, that borrowers accept limits on executive compensation, and that they provide the government with warrants for nonvoting stock.

McGuinty warned that the money will only be delivered after auto companies agree to meet conditions set by the governments.

"Those conditions include limits on executive compensations. The loans will only stay in place beyond March 31, 2009 if our governments are satisfied there are solid restructuring plans in place and under way," said McGuinty.

Meanwhile, in the U.K., British auto manufacturers stepped up pressure on Prime Minister Gordon Brown's government to deliver an industry bailout package today as a report revealed that car production slumped by a third in November.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders warned that crumbling domestic and export demand would lead to extended plant closures and job cuts as production falls.

The industry body wants the government to move quickly to restore demand and loosen tight credit conditions.

The government has confirmed it is in talks with Jaguar Land Rover's Indian owner about possible financial support.

The society says the number of cars built in British factories dropped 33 per cent to 97,604 last month. Commercial vehicle production fell 50 per cent to just under 11,000.


© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/20/business/main4679848.shtml
 
Ford's Sentiment Tells All

Ford's Sentiment Tells All
Casey B. Mulligan

Of the big 3, Ford is said to be the most solvent. Does Ford want its weaker competitors to fail or survive?

In many industries, each producer fantasizes that some of his competitors would go out of business. With their failure, the surviving producers can raise prices, cheaply acquire assets for expansion, and negotiate better deals with firms that supply inputs to the industry.

Notably, Ford has (apparently) not aspired for failures by GM or Chrysler and the aforementioned advantages that would accrue from their failures. Ford has actively participated in the lobbying efforts and -- aside from sending their CEO on the first DC trip in a private jet -- have missed many opportunities to sabotage the bailout.

This fact tells us a lot about the bailout's impact. Ford must believe that a bailed out GM and Chrysler would charge higher prices than would the manufacturer(s) who would serve GM and Chrysler customers after they failed. It's easy to see why Ford might believe this: a GM or Chrysler failure would break union contracts with those two manufacturers. Ford would still be tied to its contract as long it remained solvent, and thus would find itself competing with unionless manufacturers. Ford would benefit by a bailout of its competitors because the bailout would prevent its competitors from reducing costs.

If the Bush administration were loyal to the consumer, it would have asked Ford what kind of bailout Ford wanted for GM and Chrysler -- then did the opposite! In fact, the Bush administration did pretty much what Ford wanted, and thereby revealed its loyalties.

http://caseymulligan.blogspot.com/2008/12/fords-sentiment-tells-all.html
 
Re: Ford's Sentiment Tells All

Why the Auto Bailout's a Dead End
Detroit's primary moneymaking vehicle has been selling credit, not cars. The Big Three may have finally run out of road.
http://www.motherjones.com/washingt...out-dead-end-cars-on-credit.html?welcome=true

Stephanie Mencimer
December 22, 2008

If the federal government bails out the Big Three, who's going to buy their cars? Like those homeowners around the country who have found they owe more money than their homes are worth, millions of Americans are similarly underwater on their car loans. That debt burden will make it virtually impossible for millions of potential consumers to buy a car for years to come. This factor will severely blunt any good that a cash infusion might do for Detroit. For this, the auto industry has no one to blame but itself.

According to industry analyst Art Spinella, president of CNW Research, fully 85 percent of Americans with a car loan have negative equity. Other studies show that these loan holders, on average, owe $4,400 more than their cars are worth. Millions of Americans didn't get upside down on their car loans without a lot of help. Enter the great scourge of the American consumer market: the car dealer. Car dealers have been out in force in recent days lobbying Congress and holding rallies at dealerships around the country to generate support for the rescue plan. As a result, there's been a fair amount of sepia-toned media coverage about the desperate plight of the poor, local car dealer, that pillar of the community who supplies softball teams with T-shirts. And it's true. These folks are now threatened right along with the Detroit assembly-line workers. The National Association of Auto Dealers predicts that 900 dealerships will fail over the next year.

Lost in all the news coverage is the fact that many car dealers played a central role in creating the current mess. As franchisees of the manufacturers, car dealers don't make much money actually selling cars. The markups are pretty slim, and in recent years, Detroit has squeezed their dealerships for more and more profits. In the old days, car dealers would come up with creative ways to compensate for the small margins, such as rolling back odometers to sell cars for more than they were worth. But after Congress cracked down on the practice, dealers (and manufacturers, too) found a better way to pump up their bottom lines: selling financing.

Back in 2003, Forbes magazine observed that GM was better described as a bank that happens to make cars than as an automaker. At the time, as much as 90 percent of the company's profits came from its lending arm (which also had a mortgage branch), not from car sales. For the past decade, much of Detroit's output has been little more than a vehicle for selling credit, and the dealers have done the dirty work for them the way local mortgage brokers generated large volumes of questionable loans for big banks and finance firms.

Here's how it works: When a customer comes into a dealership to buy a car, he already knows how much the car should cost (thanks to the Internet), but he usually relies on the dealership to arrange the financing, often because they advertise lower rates than banks. That's when the scam starts. Many car dealers routinely load up car loans with all sorts of expensive but useless add-ons. These include such things as "theft etch," when a dealer will spend $37 to etch the VIN number of the car onto the windshield, tout it as an "antitheft measure," and charge the customer upward of $2,000 for it. Unbeknownst to most car buyers, dealers also routinely—and legally—bump up the interest rate offered by the bank or finance company in exchange for kickbacks from the lenders, which are often the manufacturers themselves. And in many cases, dealers encourage customers to trade in a car that isn't worth the amount of their current loan by offering to roll the old loan into the new one, thus inflating the principal and making the loan more lucrative for the lender. That's how people can end up owing $40,000 on a Ford Focus. This only works because auto lenders now stretch out the terms to six or seven years to make the payments affordable, a practice that virtually ensures that many cars won't last as long as the loan. (In the 1980s, by contrast, Spinella says the average car loan lasted only three years and required a 20 percent down payment, which limited the kind of negative equity problem seen today.)

These are not aberrant practices. They are endemic to the industry. Earlier this month, the FBI raided two California dealerships accused of defrauding a local credit union by falsifying loan documents. And in September, Bill Heard, the country's biggest Chevy dealership group, a $2.1 billion operation with dozens of outlets all across the South, shut down after GMAC cut off its financing stream. The state of Georgia had sued the company, alleging that Heard dealerships had lied to lenders about their customers' income on loan applications, forged signatures on loan agreements, and packed car loans with all the usual junk. The state's consumer affairs office had been investigating the company since 2003, and had sued it before over deceptive advertising practices. Consumer watchdogs suspect that Heard's legal trouble lies at the root of GMAC's decision to stop funding the dealerships.

Next page: Loan fraud is so widespread in the auto industry that even dealerships owned by a US congressman have been accused of engaging in it.

Loan fraud is so widespread in the auto industry that even dealerships owned by a US congressman have been accused of engaging in it. Before coming to Congress, Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) was one of the biggest car dealers in his state. (He has recently started selling off some of his dealerships.) This summer, he was hit with multiple lawsuits filed by former employees alleging that his dealerships routinely engaged in auto fraud, including submitting fraudulent loan applications to lenders.

The driving force behind all of these loan shenanigans is Wall Street. The automakers' finance arms (and banks, too) have made a fortune by packaging the inflated loans made by their dealerships and selling them as securities. It's the same scheme that ultimately brought down the subprime mortgage industry. And just like the mortgage lenders, the automakers and their finance arms must have been well aware that the loans generated by their own dealers were frequently bad ones. That's because consumer lawyers have been successfully suing them over this for years.

Tom Domonoske is a lawyer in Virginia who specializes in auto fraud cases. He says he's had dozens of cases where car dealers have created fictitious tax returns, pay stubs, and other paperwork to push through loans for people who couldn't afford them. But he says that even though the lender is frequently sued in these cases along with the car dealer, he's never once seen an automaker's lending arm cut off a dealership's financing after discovering fraud. "They want dealers to keep moving their products," he says. Rather than clean up the dealerships, the automakers simply started putting mandatory arbitration clauses in the loan documents so that customers who ended up getting screwed couldn't sue.

Until now, the negative impact of car dealers' sleazy credit practices mostly affected consumers. Meanwhile, it prevented GM and Chrysler from having to scale back production. The offers of longer loan terms and easy credit lured in customers who either had no business buying a car or couldn't truly afford the cars sold to them. "They essentially postponed a reckoning," says Joan Claybrook, the president of the nonprofit consumer group Public Citizen. Detroit automakers were warned years ago that these practices would come back to haunt them.

In 2004, major auto analysts noted that the lengthening loan terms and the increasing number of potential car buyers who were upside down on loans would lead to no good end for the auto industry, and GM in particular. Deutsche Bank analyst Rod Lache was prescient when he told Automotive News that the negative equity problem would only get worse if the automakers didn't address it. Observing that the average amount of money owed by someone trading in a car with negative equity had jumped from $2,900 to $4,000 in just a five-month period, he wrote, "The impact on US demand, price and mix from this phenomenon could be devastating, particularly if the impact is compounded by rising rates."

That's exactly what is happening now, a problem exacerbated by the credit crunch that won't be solved by simply giving the automakers taxpayer money. "Ultimately, no matter how much money Congress throws at the automakers, it's car buyers who will rescue them or not," says Rosemary Shahan, head of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety. Just as environmentalists have seen the bailout as an opportunity to change the way American companies make cars, it also offers a unique chance to change the way they sell cars. Shahan and other consumer groups have come up with a short list of things that Congress might do in this regard.

For instance, Congress could cap the amount that car dealers can increase interest rates on auto loans, as California has done. This would be a major step in limiting the growth of negative equity. Lawmakers could also create a restitution fund to help car buyers affected by dealership bankruptcy. This problem is growing as more dealerships go out of business and fail to pay off the original loans of customers who traded in old cars and purchased new ones.

Congress could also roll back a provision auto lenders won in the 2005 bankruptcy reform bill requiring individuals who file bankruptcy to repay the entirety of a car loan, even if they owed substantially more than their car was worth. Previously, someone in bankruptcy would only be required to pay back the loan up to the actual value of the car. Returning to the old system would allow more people to get out from under their debt—some of which was created through dealer fraud—and allow them to eventually rejoin the car market.

Unfortunately, none of these measures is even on the table, says Shahan, who was recently in Washington trying to inject the consumer angle into the bailout debate. Failing to provide meaningful relief to homeowners facing foreclosure has turned the banking bailout into something of a flop. Laura MacCleery, a lawyer who spent many years working on auto issues at Public Citizen before going to work for the Brennan Center for Justice, says she's amazed that Congress hasn't learned anything from the mortgage mess. "Are they going to make the same mistake twice?" she asks. The auto industry may be hoping the answer is "yes."

Photo by flickr user the toe stubber used under a Creative Commons license.

Stephanie Mencimer is a reporter in Mother Jones' Washington, DC, bureau and the author of Blocking the Courthouse Door: How the Republican Party and Its Corporate Allies Are Taking Away Your Right to Sue (Free Press, 2006).
 
Last edited:
[QUOTE
Plus, any new CEO needs to have a cap on salary, of say, $200,000.

Paying big salaries seems to be no indicator of management competence.[/QUOTE]

I agree whole heartedly I think this should have been applied to all companies that are requesting "bail outs"...Look at the mismanagement at Merril Lynch where the CEO made 100 million but his company loss 7 billion....

Where is the accountability of the CEO...If you steal a pair of 100 shoes from Foot Locker I bet you'll be fired.....
 
Re: Ford's Sentiment Tells All

<IFRAME SRC="http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/would_3_million_jobs_be_lost_if.html" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/would_3_million_jobs_be_lost_if.html">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
Re: Ford's Sentiment Tells All

Ford is trippin me out because they were doing the worst a few years back and leveraged everything for multibillion dollar loan
 
Re: 12 Days of Bailouts

<font size="5"><center>Time is up for GM, Chrysler
to file restructuring plans</font size>
<font size="4">

General Motors (GM) and Chrysler must file
restructuring plans with the government by February
17, 2009 that will determine whether the two struggling
automakers get billions more in government
loans that could keep them alive</font size></center>


USA Today
By Sharon Silke Carty
February 16, 2009


DETROIT — General Motors (GM) and Chrysler must file restructuring plans with the government Tuesday that will determine whether the two struggling automakers get billions more in government loans that could keep them alive.
The plans will include discussions of bankruptcy because the government said they must. The car companies insist this is not a realistic option.

When the government agreed late last year to lend GM $13.4 billion and Chrysler $4 billion to keep operating, they were told to come back now with plans showing major cost cuts and ongoing restructuring so the taxpayers' money would not be wasted on companies that would go broke.

The government Tuesday will hand over to GM the final $4 billion of that $13.4 billion commitment. Whether the automakers get any more depends on their restructuring plans, to be filed electronically Tuesday, without a formal presentation.

Both GM's and Chrysler's plans will show an "aggressive" amount of progress since the automakers were in Washington in December, says David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research.

FIND MORE STORIES IN: Washington | Germany | Detroit | General Motors | Chrysler LLC | United Auto Workers | Saturn | Hummer | Center for Automotive Research | Cerberus Capital Management | David Cole | Saab | Fiat | Daimler
The plans will go "beyond what you would have normally expected," says Cole, who noted that negotiations with the union and bondholders for 11th-hour sacrifices were continuing late Monday.

The government said in the December bailout deal that everybody — unions, managers, suppliers, investors, bondholders, executives — had to make major sacrifices.

The major issue for GM and the United Auto Workers is whether the union will accept GM stock in exchange for the money the automaker owes the union for a retiree health care plan the UAW agreed previously to take over.

GM's plan is likely to include more factory closings — though they may not be named — and perhaps the final word on the fate of the company's small Saturn and Hummer brands and its money-losing Saab unit.

Chrysler says it has a plan showing how it could be viable as a stand-alone company and another assuming that it partners with Italian automaker Fiat. They have a tentative deal in which the Italian car company would share its small-car technology and platforms, products Chrysler needs, in return for 35% ownership of the Detroit automaker. The two companies also could sell their products through each other's dealers.

Currently, Cerberus Capital Management owns 80.1% of Chrysler, and Chrysler's former owner, Germany's Daimler, owns the other 18.9% — which it values on its books at $0.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-02-16-auto-restructuring-plans_N.htm
 
Back
Top