GM Bankruptcy

[Bruce Nunnally]

Tuned on the Nurburgring to set the chassis and handling for the sport model. They seem to have done a great job with that.

The solution to the CTS-V wheel hop appears to have been different diameter half-shafts on the 2009 model. The STS-V apparently also solved the wheelhop issue, but I am not clear on what was done differently there. The STS-V also appears to have a bullet proof differential.

There have been several redesigns on the timing chains, apparently in an attempt to make them quieter. I am aware that in the process they have had some bad chains and we have seen some reports of chain-related issues. It is not clear to me yet how widespread a problem this is. The 3.6L is a mainstay of the GM line, not just Cadillac right now. There are a LOT of them in a LOT of cars.

[BodybyFisher]

Tuned on the Nurburgring to set the chassis and handling for the sport model. They seem to have done a great job with that.

The solution to the CTS-V wheel hop appears to have been different diameter half-shafts on the 2009 model. The STS-V apparently also solved the wheelhop issue, but I am not clear on what was done differently there. The STS-V also appears to have a bullet proof differential.

There have been several redesigns on the timing chains, apparently in an attempt to make them quieter. I am aware that in the process they have had some bad chains and we have seen some reports of chain-related issues. It is not clear to me yet how widespread a problem this is. The 3.6L is a mainstay of the GM line, not just Cadillac right now. There are a LOT of them in a LOT of cars.

The point I am making is that the WHEEL HOP issue should NEVER have reached the public when the car is tested so extensively, it only hurts their reputation, they get ALMOST there and drop the ball on the one yard line. I am sure it is solved now, but how long did it take?

I had a Cadillac dealer tell me that the reason the GETRAG differential was bad was because the car was not BROKEN IN properly, they changed their tune when we brought in a ream of paper detailing the problem

[Cadillac Jim]

My struts are original at about 130,000 miles, as are all my suspension knuckles and bushings, including stabilizer links and bushings.

I have a theory about undercar problems in older cars -- if you drive in snow and salt in the winter, and park with salt slush up under the car, you will have trouble with everything it touches in about 8 years. If you park in a garage that stays above freezing, say by insulating the outside walls but letting some heat from the house keep the garage above freezing at night so that stuff melts off and the car dries out, you will have a lot less trouble with it. There are other things you can do like washing the underside after driving in snow but the practical thing to do is to park inside, if possible.

I've had a lot of cars in my time, and I've had three for seven years each. I've had my 1997 ETC for eleven years now and I just bought a set of tires with the intent of driving it at least four more years.

And, FWIW, I think GM will be around for a long time. The unspeakably painful Chapter 11 solution to the burden problem as per Delta Airlines and others may be something that happens but from the global point of view it just passes retirement sustenance costs to another area, albeit at lower costs.

[ikswotug]

one thing that hasn't been mentioned is how gm and all the other car companies set themselves up for failure. the whole way they stay in business is buy trying to sell a durable good like a consumable. which works when people are making money, but when things get tighter like they have been they suffer. frankly America could survive quite well if there wasn't even another car built for the next ten years, we have plenty just sitting.

[WarrenJ]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=08...;show_article=1

"General Motors is in such dire financial straights that it needs to line up a federal aid packaged before president-elect Barack Obama takes office in January, the automaker's chief executive said Monday."

Didn't GM report it had enough funds to carry it thru Q2 2009?

[Bruce Nunnally]

Not exactly. GM has to have a cash account of $10B or so to keep day to day operations running. They are approaching that critical mass by the end of 2008, having 11-14B left in cash.

After that they will not be able to buy things to make into cars to sell.

[WarrenJ]

Not exactly. GM has to have a cash account of $10B or so to keep day to day operations running. They are approaching that critical mass by the end of 2008, having 11-14B left in cash.

After that they will not be able to buy things to make into cars to sell.

Understood. By some coincidence I've also exhausted my last $billion as well.

[Cadillac Jim]

The credit crunch has dried up new car sales, on top of the fuel crisis, cutting sales by 50% industry-wide. The domestic burn rate is driven by old labor agreements to a far greater extent that foreign automakers, so while Japan Inc. is treading water and German automakers are hit hard, domestic automakers are sinking fast. It's a new thing since this thread started, when the capitalization was supposed to last until next September. Now, it won't make Christmas for GM and Ford isn't far behind. Chrysler, which isn't publicly traded in the same way, is less transparent but their situation is similar.

An automaker bailout should, if the Chrysler bailout of the 1960s is any guide, be in the form of Government-guaranteed loans, not subsidies or equity acquisitions as in the banking crisis bailouts. Conditions can be set on the Government side, as in the banking bailouts. The problem isn't executive pay -- at least to the same degree as in the financial industry -- and I'm not sure that management routs are called for, as with the financial industry.

The domestic car industry is run as a business on the corporate level and as a car business on the make and model level, and I have a hard time faulting that concept. In Germany, it seems to be run by the car people pretty much all the way up the chain, with the business people having veto power but not setting policy. In Japan, it seems that the business people run it all the way to the plant level, with notable exceptions in early Nissan (Datsun) and in Honda through the 1990's, and niche players like Subaru and Suzuki. I like the US model.

Obvious megatrends that have gotten us to this point are well-known and thoroughly hashed: a 90-day business horizon driven by quarterly financial reports that define the stock prices, high burn rate from labor and entitlements that drive domestic carmakers to innovate vehicle types that appeal to Americans and provide high profit margins (pickup trucks, daily-driver family pickup trucks, minivans, SUVs, luxury trucks,...) and the Japanese move into these same markets as soon as they can, driving the domestics to invent another vehicle type, like the crossover. The domestics gave up leadership in entry-level cars long ago which means that we have generation after generation of domestic drivers with foreign marque brand loyalty, and a pervasive public perception of the inferiority of domestic marques; how many times have you Northstar people had drivers of four-cylinder Nissans try to kick sand in your face?

So, the domestics have gone where the money is and done an excellent job of it, and have been the source of just about all the innovation in the mainstream car business since 1915. Without them, the automobile business has a dreary future.

[BodybyFisher]

Yahoo News

GM shares hit 65-year low amid liquidity concerns

43 mins ago

DETROIT (Reuters) – Shares of General Motors Corp plummeted 15 percent to a 65-year low on Tuesday, extending recent steep declines on lingering concerns that the automaker's cash holdings might fall below the necessary minimum during the first quarter.

Shares of other automakers and parts suppliers also declined across the board amid increasing concerns over whether the industry could survive a deep downturn in U.S. auto sales.

Credit analysts at JPMorgan said on Tuesday GM has several options to improve liquidity, but added that the No. 1 U.S. automaker's short-term survival will require the help of the government, the company's suppliers, or both.

While government aid would decrease the risk of a bankruptcy, analysts have warned that any assistance would come at a significant cost to existing shareholders.

The White House said on Tuesday it was open to considering any proposals from Congress to accelerate loans to the ailing U.S. auto industry from the already-appropriated $25 billion package.

GM's shares were down 15 percent, or 51 cents, at $2.85 on the New York Stock Exchange. The stock earlier dropped as much as 18 percent to $2.76, its lowest level since 1943.

GM shares have lost nearly 40 percent since Friday when the company reported a deeper-than-expected third-quarter loss and said its cash burn rate had accelerated, as an extended slump in car sales raised questions about the future of the U.S. auto industry.

GM announced additional steps to increase liquidity, but said that even with those moves, liquidity would be at or near the minimum needed to run its business through the rest of 2008 and would fall significantly short of the minimum needed during the first two quarters of next year.

Shares of Ford Motor Co fell 8.3 percent, or 16 cents, to $1.77, while auto parts supplier Lear Corp slumped 19 percent, or 32 cents, to $1.35.

(Reporting by Soyoung Kim, editing by Matthew Lewis)

[WarrenJ]

I'm wondering if this "Bailout Business" isn't getting a bit out of hand.

I'm beginning to think about aligning myself with those who feel GM should go the Chapter 11 route.

Any thoughts?

Regards,

Warren

[BodybyFisher]

Republicans believe in the free market and will allow GM to go bankrupt. GM can not compete with manufacturers NOT encumbered with pensions, salaries, featherbedding, and perks due to automation that they must pay due to their negotiations with unions during the high flying times when they did not face direct competition with these unemcumbered manufacturers.

On the front page of the WSJ today, is an interesting article. Of course the unions are blaming GMs management for the problem and they refuse to give in any more.

The Democrats (who receive much support from UNIONS) on the other hand want to bailout GM with quid pro quo's, build fuel efficient cars (which they already do), government ownership in the manufacturers (socialism, think Chavez and his nationalizing the oil companies) and caps on management salaries. To me, the dems are using this problem to get their HOOKS into the car manufacturers. Let them go bankrupt to level the playing field.

If I were GM I would tell DEMS to take a hike and go out bankrupt, get rid of the encumberances and come back mean and lean.

PLEASE read the article

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1226434235...tics_And_Policy

here is an interesting statement from this article

Detroit's auto makers and the United Auto Workers have stuck by work rules that have hamstrung the companies, such as job banks that continue to pay workers who lost jobs due to automation or plant restructurings.

Now think about this, if GM must be encumbered by this crap and TOYOTA does NOT, who would be more profitable? GO BANKRUPT to SURVIVE, keep the socialist gov out of your pocket!

[WarrenJ]

As More Companies Seek Aid, 'Where Do You Stop?':

http://www.cnbc.com/id/27662540/

AP

Ahead of the Bell: American Express seeks $3.5B

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081112/american_ex..._bell.html?.v=1

[Ranger]

I am convinced that a bail out is just a band aid to delay the inevitable.

[BodybyFisher]

As I was saying.... Democrats want this. Notice why GM is having problems, I highlighted it.

GO BANKRUPT

Democrats Want UAW Bailout

November 12, 2008

RUSH: CNBC today had a video clip, a segment I should say, that deals with the auto industry since they're being talked about in terms of being bailed out. They had a chart and I got hold of it here. When you look at the chart, it's no wonder that General Motors and Ford and Chrysler are having financial problems. Their costs are 53% higher than Toyota and 132% higher than other manufacturing. The cost per hour to manufacture at the Big Three auto companies is $73.20, and that's total compensation per hour, selected workers, 2007-2008. At Toyota, it's $48 an hour, management and professional, $47.57, goods producing, $31.59. All workers, $28.48 an hour, average out all workers and it costs the Big Three auto companies $73.20 an hour, and a lot of this is they're paying people that no longer work for them, and these pensions and the unions -- if we bail out the auto companies, let me ask you a quick question.

If today all three auto companies received, what they were talking about, $25 or $50 billion, they divvy up, what change do you expect from these companies? What change would you expect? Well, there won't be any right off the bat. They've already got $25 billion that has been pledged for retooling and rebuilding, but do you realize what's happened, the federal government and these executives, they are so strained with these union contracts. This is not a bailout of the Big Three, this is a bailout of the United Autoworkers Union. That's what this is all about, folks. It is a bailout of the United Autoworkers Union. It is a Democrat sop to Jennifer Granholm to make sure that her reputation doesn't get sullied 'cause she's already running a state in recession that she helped put there, along with her party. This is a bailout of the United Auto Workers and the union contracts and everything else that goes hand in hand here. The executives are in such trouble at these companies, they are promising everything. "Well, of course, we'll make all kinds of cars that get better mileage and we will limit executive pay, and we will end golden parachutes."

Liberal Democrats are infecting and perverting elements of the private sector and the free market private sector that I never dreamed would ever happen in my lifetime. We're bailing out unions, is what we're doing, and we're going to be bailing out credit card companies and whoever else. You wouldn't believe the number of lobbyists that are signing up to get their hands on the bailout money. Lobbyists for various companies are lobbying the Treasury department for their companies to get a percentage of the bailout. Why should it be any different with a bailout than it is any other pile of money? Congress sits there with a budget every year of three trillion bucks, lobbyists and everybody else. This is not against lobbyists, by the way, you're never going to get rid of them. I don't care what any politician says, you're never going to get rid of them, they do what they do. Most of them actually perform a service. At any rate, I don't want to get off on a tangent with that. But why did everybody expect purity and comity and seriousness when you throw a pile of $700 billion at people?

Every year they get three trillion and everybody starts divvying that up, who's going to get that portion, lobbyists start lobbying Congress, "Oh, this group needs some money, we need to build a bridge out there." Congressman and Senators do their own lobbying. So now we've got the $700 billion bailout bill, which could not wait, it was a crisis, it was definitely this country's future, its very existence rested on this bailout being passed in 24 hours. And then as weeks went by before it was passed or a couple weeks, everything kept chugging along, people kept getting up and going at work, stores had food in them, gas stations had gasoline, but it was a crisis, and we had to deal with it, we had to deal with it immediately, otherwise the country would simply implode and cease to exist. But the country kept on working. So now the original purpose of the bailout has been broomed, the Treasury secretary says, nah, we're not going to buy up that bad paper. He begged banks to start lending today, and then he apologized to the world for the United States failing to meet its responsibilities and obligations and having contributed to the global financial collapse.

Well, all that means is that all these little tinhorn dictators and every other hapless fool leader around the world is, "Okay, you take the blame for it? Fine, well we've been irreparably harmed by your immoral behavior as a superpower. Where is my damage payment?" So we're going to have the world coming at us with their hands out. They already come at us now through the United Nations in stealth ways. Now they're just going to be open about it. Well, the Treasury secretary apologized. He said the United States is responsible for all this hell that's going globally and the financial markets and other areas of economics. He said the United States is to blame for it. So in the meantime we're going to bail out the United Auto Workers and we're going to bail out credit card companies and in the process the federal government, run by Democrats, are going to have their fingers in every business they can get them in, and they're not going to ever let go of it.

And so they couldn't actually muster the votes for limits on executive pay. And some of you, by the way, may say, "Well, Rush, that's pretty good, that might actually help employees like management a little better. You know, there's a lot of resentment out there, Rush, 'cause these executives pay themselves all this money and the workers don't get very much at all." Fine. Okay, so you're going to limit executive pay. The last time they tried this, it led to stock options. They'll find ways around this. There are always ways around this. But even if there aren't any ways around, even if executive pay is limited, it ain't going to make the workers any happier. Their paychecks aren't going to get any bigger. That's not the result. We're not going to have a trickle-down, if you will. So all these years we've wanted to eliminate executive pay, now executives are going right along with it, and Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank, these people are designing cars.

Read the Background Material...

• MarketWatch: NLPC Says Obama Faces Dilemma on GM/Chrysler/Ford

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/NLPC...ED2A7E819AE8%7D

Bailout; Proposals Characterized as Payoff to United Auto Workers

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/NLPC...ED2A7E819AE8%7D

[JimD]

There would be no end to the line of corporations lining up to suck on the taxpayer teat.

The IRS has long had Chapter 11 rules & procedures in place for failing/failed corporations.

Capitalism is a demanding and rewarding mistress.

Let the chips fall.

[Cadillac Jim]

Well, since we are discussing bailouts, and the obvious trend to make an increasing amount of them handouts, here is a video that shows the common sense viewpoint on bailouts:

Panel Discussion

In The Know: Should The Government Stop Dumping Money Into A Giant Hole?

[BodybyFisher]

Politics.......

PRESS RELEASE

NLPC Says Obama Faces Dilemma on GM/Chrysler/Ford Bailout; Proposals Characterized as Payoff to United Auto Workers

Last update: 10:42 a.m. EST Nov. 12, 2008

FALLS CHURCH, Va., Nov 12, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Peter Flaherty, President of the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC), today criticized proposals to bailout GM, Chrysler and Ford, arguing that the plans are actually intended to bailout the United Auto Workers (UAW). Flaherty said:

The $700-million Wall Street bailout was not meant to be a prize for special interest groups that were on the winning side of the election. It is a mistake to use TARP to reward high-tax, non-right to work states like Michigan. It was argued that failure of financial firms posed systemic risk; no such risk exists with the automakers.

The automaker bailout is actually a UAW bailout. The union will not allow companies to deploy capital in ways that the market would dictate such as closing plants and layoffs. That's why UAW opposed the GM/Chrysler merger and a government role in it.

UAW wants to instead enrich health and retirement plans they control, like the $35 billion GM VEBA (Voluntary Employee Beneficial Association). GM is scheduled to make a $7 billion payment in 2010. These entities will survive the collapse of the companies. Union boss control of all this money will not protect worker benefits, but will only guarantee another generation of union corruption and political power.

Obama has a dilemma. If he provides a short-term fix now on the UAW's terms, these companies are doomed. Later, he will face requests for even more taxpayer money. A so-called bridge loan would be more like a bridge to nowhere loan.

The automakers' biggest problem is union contracts. The price of equity shares go down when overvalued, but contracts stay the same. To subsidize these contracts is unfair to other automakers operating in the United States. Yes, they are foreign companies but they have assembly plants here.

It was foreign companies that brought hybrids to market. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid cannot design cars any better than they can run Congress. The loan program for retooling is nothing more than industrial policy, a discredited remnant of the 20th century.

If the purpose is to save jobs, then automakers are nothing more than jobs programs. There are more efficient ways to create jobs, like cutting taxes.

NLPC promotes ethics in public life and sponsors the Organized Labor Accountability Project. Since 1997, NLPC has published a newsletter titled Union Corruption Update twice a month.

SOURCE National Legal and Policy Center

http://www.nlpc.org

[BodybyFisher]

I could see a day when GM moves to CHINA..

[WarrenJ]

From a report by Stratfor:

"Few if any believe the U.S. auto industry can survive in its current form. But there is an emerging consensus in Washington that the auto industry must not be allowed to fail now. The argument for spending money on the auto industry is not to save it, but to postpone its failure until a less devastating and inconvenient time. In other words, fearing the social and political consequences of a recession working itself through to its logical conclusion, Washington — like Beijing — wants to spend money it probably won’t recover to postpone the failure. Indeed, governments around the world are considering what failures to tolerate, what failures to postpone, and how much to spend on the latter. General Motors is merely the American case in point."

"The only possible solution would be a bailout followed by a Washington-administered restructuring of the auto industry. This causes us to imagine a collaboration between the auto industry’s current management and Washington administrators that would finally put Detroit on a path to where it can compete with Toyota. Frankly, the mind boggles at this. But boggle though we might, hitting the economy with another massive financial default, a wave of bankruptcies, massive unemployment surges and another blow to housing prices boggles our mind even more."

SEE: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20081117_g_...ocial_stability

EDIT: At the end of this article you will be invited to sign up for a free weekly report. Stratfor is the world's premier open source intelligence provider. It's free. 'Nuff said?

[WarrenJ]

"While it is hard to think of any managements that seem less deserving of help than those of the Big Three, the spillover effects to the rest of the economy could be huge if they went down. Perhaps as many as 2 million jobs could be lost at a time when unemployment is already skyrocketing (new unemployment claims were 542,000 -- the highest since 1992, and continuing claims were the highest since 1982 at over 4 million).

While in some senses the problems of the Big Three have been decades in the making, the timing of the current crisis is due to the credit crunch. With financing cut off, there are simply not that many people who are able to pay for a new car in cash.

Theoretically, the situation the Big Three find themselves in is just what Chapter 11 bankruptcy is supposed to be there for. Some of the legacy costs could be addressed, contracts could be re-written, debt exchanged for new equity (existing shareholders wiped out) and new management put in place."

SOURCE: http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/16024/

[Regis]

Personally, I think GM, Ford, and Chrysler should go chapter 11 asap and kill off the UAW. This whole notion that doing so would add some 2 million to the unemployed is hog wash (although it's a nice attempt at a spin). Go chapter 11, kill off the UAW, kill off the entitlements and pensions then...... reorganize, rehire many of the workers at reasonable pay, and have the Government use the bail out money to subsidize the lost pensions of the retired workers. Any new workers looking to retire do not get a pension.

[Ranger]

Why does everyone think that chapter 11 will make the UAW go away. It won't. The UAW is there to stay. Under chapter 11 they WILL have to renegotiate their contracts and make some concessions, but they will not get killed off or go away in any way, shape or form. The only thing that will make that happen is chapter 7.

[BodybyFisher]

Personally, I think GM, Ford, and Chrysler should go chapter 11 asap and kill off the UAW. This whole notion that doing so would add some 2 million to the unemployed is hog wash (although it's a nice attempt at a spin). Go chapter 11, kill off the UAW, kill off the entitlements and pensions then...... reorganize, rehire many of the workers at reasonable pay, and have the Government use the bail out money to subsidize the lost pensions of the retired workers. Any new workers looking to retire do not get a pension.

Ditto