Find Reviews by Make:
Click to enlarge. For better resolution, head over to mint.com or get younger. [Thanks to Mike B for the link.]
11 Comments on “Chrysler, Ford and GM Still Worth A Mint...”
Read all comments
Breakdown. Unfortunate choice of words.
A breathtaking graphic. Check the job and ownership stats from 2006.
I’ve been saying this for over a year now:
BUY: Tata.
I thought the Ford family still owned something like 40% of the company? Or do they just have “40% controlling interest”?
I was wondering about the ownership of Ford. It claims 100% shareholders. But the Ford family has a large say in the company thanks to preferred shares. Or did something change and they give up their royal status?
maniceightball :
September 3rd, 2009 at 6:34 pm
I thought the Ford family still owned something like 40% of the company? Or do they just have “40% controlling interest”?
If I remember correctly the family owns about 3% of the stock. The thing is that it’s Class B stock which gives them 40% control. It’s been that way since the 50s.
W Buffett’s “ownership” of BYDDF is misleading: he was only allowed to take possession of around 10% of BYD, before share price appreciation, under current company regulation.
Disclosure: We are long BYDDF.
And Gregg is on target: the Ford family owns 2.25% of total shares outstanding. Class A shares each get one vote, while Class B (family) shares offer 22 votes per share as long as ~61 millions shares of Class B remain outstanding.
Any idea why Ford has 2x the amount of US workers left vs. GM and Chrysler has almost as many as GM?
Also, I find the “Queen in Right of Canada and Ontario” ownership stakes interesting. Maybe one of our Canadian B&B can fill us in on how that works.
Maybe we’ll see some “Brougham” editions and a new Chrysler (British) Imperial?
@mattstairs: That’s the technical legal term for Canadian governments (federal and provincial) since the Queen is still the head of state. I’ve only ever seen it used in government bills and legal documents.
So basically it translates to “The Governments of Canada and Ontario.”
I re-read the chapters on GM from Roger Lowenstein’s “While America Aged” last night. Since the major long-term liabilities associated with the retiree healthcare and the pension benefits were not been extinguished in the “quick rinse” bankruptcy, I have a hard time believing that anything has really changed at the RenCen. Yes the bondholders got washed away (interestingly the proceeds of which were used in large part to fund the underfunded pension plans) and Uncle Sugar has contributed to operating cash but the fact is that GM still has the overhang of long-term cash drain associated with gracious pension and retiree healthcare benefits that have not been substantially curtailed, except for the salaried workforce. Lowenstein argued that over time the financial benefits of operating GM were transferred from equity holders to the UAW. I think recent history proves him correct (he wrote the book before the BK). I would argue that they still have not substantially reduced their structural costs in North America since a signficant portion of those costs are paid to retirees and those benefits have not been cut. Why would anyone in their right mind even consider investing in either GM equity or bonds if they ever do a public offerings again? The game has not changed and it is still all about the UAW and their system of “social justice” for the workers.
Who or what is “mint.com”? A couple things about this bother me. One is that only FIAT’s gross revenue is cited, not Chrysler’s, even though FIAT is only a 20% owner. The other is the bottom line assessment of GM. “laser focus”? Chevy for “the masses”? The last time I saw a reference to “the masses” was when I had to read Karl Marx for a comparative political thought class in college.