In 1979, Chrysler was staring down the barrel of bankruptcy. ChryCo’s charismatic CEO stepped forward, publicly lobbying for $1.5B worth of federal loan guarantees. Lee Iacocca captured the American taxpayer’s respect and trust—to the point where the automaker’s ad folk made Lee the company’s pitchman. “If you can find a better car, buy it!” he dared. They did and they didn’t. Either way, Iacocca’s communication skills were beyond reproach. Contrast that with today’s mumbling, bumbling Motown CEOs, who’ve managed to alienate well over half of the American public, who no longer want to buy Detroit’s cars OR provide them with a second (third) chance. And no wonder. The CEOs have demonstrated an abject inability to call a spade a spade, or sell the spadework that must be done (which is largely grave digging by now). Wagoner, Nardelli and Mulally’s failure is what it is. But what about the little guy in all this? Who speaks for them?

I’m not talking about Detroit’s unionized workers or their white collar counterparts. As much as I sympathize with their plight—caught-up as they are in a poisonous corporate culture not of their own making—they are hardly a downtrodden, voiceless minority. Their Motown overlords have Washington’s ear. The fact that Chrysler and GM have scored over $50 bn in federal handouts of one sort or another (loans, retooling loans, finance company bailouts, etc.), while Ford has arranged a $9 bn line of credit, speaks for itself. Detroit’s dealers, captive finance companies and suppliers are also well represented. But what of everybody else in the American automotive industry?

I refer to the foreign nameplate automakers and their workers. Other than some gentle murmurs of encouragement, we’ve heard nothing from Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai and the rest of America’s so-called transplants re: Chrysler and GM’s federal trough snuffling. The transplants should be a force to be reckoned with; they currently account for more than half of all automotive sales within our borders. They aren’t technically bankrupt, or facing bankruptcy. Yet their tax money (like ours) must now pay for Detroit’s chronic mismanagement.

The transplants’ productivity and success, their ability to create goods and services that American consumers want at a price that makes the company a profit (in accordance with all U.S. laws and regulations), is now subsidizing Detroit’s ongoing incompetence.

Of course, it’s worse than that. This is not a general taxpayer bitch and moan thing. It’s a government using tax money to distort the will of the American consumer by propping-up a dead competitor trading thing. In a severely contracting market, no less. I know: jobs! jobs! jobs! But what about the jobs! jobs! jobs! of all the productive, hard-working non-Detroit autoworkers laboring within U.S. borders?

The current economic meltdown has forced Toyondaissan to curtail American production, cancel scheduled factory openings and lay off thousands of workers. Would those curtailments have been as severe if Chrysler and GM had been “allowed” to go belly-up? Of course not. Common sense tells us the transplants would have scooped-up a [yet] larger share of the suddenly smaller pie, supporting American jobs and American communities. There’s no getting around it: the federal bailout is taking food of the tables of American workers.

There’s plenty of room to debate the advisability of encouraging foreign nameplates to manufacture cars in the U.S., relative to, say, Detroit-based automakers. (Who’ve shown no reluctance about importing vehicles into the U.S. market.) We’ve engaged in that discussion here on TTAC many times. But where is the voice of the transplants and their workers in this debate?

Again, there are thousands of workers and dozens of communities spread throughout the U.S. who build cars for Toyota, Honda, Nissan and Hyundai. Workers who manufacture a quality product for American consumers. Workers who pay their taxes. Workers who are NOT sucking off the federal teat, either directly or indirectly. Who speaks for them? Are they not outraged by their own government’s willingness to put their jobs at risk to support a business model that’s broken beyond repair?

If they’re not, they should be. Last year, they went to bed and woke-up in a world where free and fair competition, combined with the sweat of their own brow, assured their family’s future. Now, who knows? A cabal of corrupt financiers blew a hole through U.S. banking regulations designed to protect the average wage earner from economic ruin. These insiders opened the door; the feds have come traipsing in, paving Detroit’s road to hell, forcing American autoworkers to compete against their own government.

It’s time for them to tell Washington that these enormous, unrecoverable “loans” to Chrysler and GM are a cancer on their beliefs. I understand the transplants’ desire to keep a low profile and wait for the dust to settle. But America’s traditional values are at stake. Their workers must step up and say no to Bailout Nation.

Bankruptcy is more than a financial reckoning. It’s a psychological way-point, from “we’re doing our best” to “re-do.” Let’s call that middle point “we blew it.” That’s not too harsh, is it? I mean, if Chrysler and GM didn’t blow it, they wouldn’t be bankrupt. Oh wait; they’re not bankrupt. Which means Chrysler and GM don’t have to face the otherwise inescapable fact that they NSFWed-up. Of course, they should face reality. You know: the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. But as long as they’re supported by enablers, they’re happy to stick with “we’re doing our best”—even though their best is nowhere near good enough. Uncle Sam’s support I get. But the media’s participation in this delusional denial is unconscionable. I speak specifically of, you guessed it, The Detroit News.

TTAC’s Best and Brightest know that I regularly OK routinely give The Detroit News NSFW. As the hometown paper, the News could have steered their readership towards a greater understanding of the domestic carmakers’ predicament. They could have been at the forefront at the debate over the automakers’ future (if indeed there is one). Instead, they stayed on the sidelines, pom-poms in hand, perpetuating every excuse proffered by the piss-ant PR pansies blowing smoke up America’s NSFW, actually cheering the automakers’ multi-billion dollar raids on the public purse. And they’re still doing it.

“Give GM, Chrysler some breathing room” is yet another example where The Detroit News gets it badly, completely, foolishly, dangerously wrong.

Leaders of President Barack Obama’s auto task force now say that deadline isn’t likely to be enforced, taking away a gun from the heads of Chrysler and GM and allowing them more time to carefully put together their new business plans.

It makes sense for the government to provide that flexibility. No one will be able to say for certain whether the two automakers are viable until the administration thaws the credit freeze and Americans regain confidence in the economy.

The auto industry is not suffering as much from a failed business strategy as it is from the inability of its customers to get loans and the wariness of consumers to make big purchases.

Are these guys NSFWing nuts? Well, yes. Obviously.

Obviously, Chrysler and GM’s unions and bondholders can’t be “encouraged” into ripping-up and re-writing their agreements with the automakers if there isn’t a gun to GM’s head. Why would they?

Obviously, waiting for the economy to recover is not a viable “plan” for either Chrysler or GM.

Obviously, Chrysler and GM (NOT “the auto industry”) were and are suffering from a failed business strategy. They were losing money and market share hand over fist when the economy was booming.

The really tragic part about this: The Detroit News and, by extension, the automakers, actually believe that they can keep dancing the waltz as compartment after compartment fills with water. They are willfully ignorant of their plight. They refuse to abandon ship—even if it means taking tens of billions of our hard-earned tax money down with them. Well, it already has. So tens of billions of additional dollars.

Notching down the urgency level a bit ought to give everyone the room they need to make sound decisions.

The task force can do one more thing for the automakers: Approve the next round of loans to help them continue operating until the market rebounds. Rattner has before him $22 billion in loan requests from GM and Chrysler, and acknowledges they need the money.

But taxpayer backlash to bailouts makes additional loans dicey. The money would be well-used.

WHAT!? In fact, correct me if I’m wrong (I know you will) but it’s the taxpayer that’s going to be well-used. The News begs to differ.

Chrysler, which needs $5 billion by the end of the month, says it is making progress in its alliance talks with the Italian automaker Fiat.

The alliance would allow Chrysler to cut its expenses and expand its markets, and place it back on the road to profitability.

GM has showrooms filled with attractive product and is negotiating a new labor pact with the United Auto Workers union that should sharply reduce its operating costs. Once consumers start buying vehicles again, it should be in good shape.

There’s a light out there at the end of this tunnel. If GM and Chrysler are given the time and the help they need to reach it, the entire economy will benefit.

Not to coin a phrase, the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlamp of an oncoming train. Somebody should pull the brake on this bailout express, ’cause full speed ahead is only going to make things worse, not better. Or, to return to our original metaphor, preventing Chrysler and GM from bottoming out will guarantee their death in the gutter.

The president who did more to expand the federal government than any other in modern history began his first term assuring Americans that the only thing they had to fear was fear itself. Flash forward seventy-six years and FDR’s spiritual successor wants his fellow countrymen to live in fear—so his administration can achieve the same Big Government goal. Lets call it the Fram filter doctrine. Remember the old Fram filter ad? “You can pay me now or you can pay me later.” There’s your philosophical justification for the Detroit bailout. We have to bail out Motown (and everyone else) NOW or the whole economy will go to hell and we’ll WISH we’d made the “investment.” Rubbish.

There’s only one way Bailout Nation makes sense: if you accept the supposedly “inevitable outcome” of failing to prop-up failed enterprise. Oh, hell. You don’t even have to accept it; you just have to be afraid that it’s true. If GM catches a cold, Americans will die of plague. Are we really that stupid?

Cravenly, disgustingly, to their eternal shame, GM and Chrysler Gulfstreamed to Washington to flim-flam the fruits of their epic mismanagement as a threat to all taxpayers. Their CEOs testified that if we didn’t hand them $19.4B worth of taxpayers’ money, the “ripple effect” of a Chrysler and GM Chapter 11 would kill the economy dead.

No! Worse! If we “let” GM and Chrysler slide into bankruptcy, it will destroy America’s entire industrial base. Foreigners—foreigners!—will steal our middle class and, eventually, turn us into their bitch.

So we paid up. And now the zombies are back, using the same tactics that loosened the public purse strings the first time. Pols and press are busy perpetuating the same flawed, fear-based logic which obviously, catastrophically, nearasdammit immediately failed. In fact, we’re post-Fram. The new thinking: we can pay them MORE now and we can pay them MORE later. And… that’s it. Oh yes, we eventually get electric cars. 

Here’s another idea. How about we pay Chrysler and GM NOTHING now so we don’t destroy the entire United States economy later? I’m serious. Forget debtor-in-possession financing. If the markets won’t embrace Chrysler and GM’s C11 turnaround plans why should the American taxpayer?

If America wants to clean up the aftermath of a Chrysler and GM C11 by creating a new health care, pension and unemployment safety net, if John Q. Public feels sorry enough for displaced auto workers to spread boondoggle billions over the bankruptcy-blighted landscape, go ahead. But for God’s sake, let these automakers die. It’s gonna be ugly. But over-capacity is over-capacity. There’s no way for GM to avoid the consequences of its inability to make itself indispensable. None. When the bailout music stops, GM still won’t have a chair.

If we continue to bail out Detroit, and extend that largess to automotive suppliers, dealers, etc., we’ll screw-up the economic fundamentals that made this country the world’s greatest economic power: minimal government intervention in fair, free and open markets. We’ll be stealing food from the tables of those companies and workers that didn’t end up in DC. Who didn’t use threats, bribes and extortion to avoid the consequences of their own actions. And we’ll be running-up the price of transportation for the average consumer.

Bankruptcy was designed for this exact situation. Do we really have so little faith in our existing institutions that we want to create some special exemption for a gang of bombastic millionaires that somehow got the idea that they deserve a pass that we, the people, would never receive? What’s wrong with Chapter 11 anyway? GM and Chrysler are afraid of that no one will buy a car from them in bankruptcy. And they want us to “take ownership” of their fear. With our cash.

Someone needs to stare these fear-mongering whiners in the face and tell them to man up. If it’s true that consumers won’t buy your products after you’ve declared bankruptcy, it’s your fault. Not ours. YOU killed your brands, not US. Instead of holding a gun to our head, why don’t use your valuable—make that expensive—time devising a way OUT of bankruptcy. Find some way to come back from the dead that doesn’t steal money from the mouths of productive citizens and taxpayers.

Yes, we’re afraid for our economic survival. Yes, we feel for others who will suffer for their boss’ incompetence, arrogance, short-sightedness and greed. But we must not abandon who we are as Americans and what we believe in. 

Faith, hope and charity are wonderful, noble ideals. But they’re not what makes America strong. That would be independence, creativity, hard work, determination and a deep-rooted belief in fair play. Now is not the time to abandon our principles.  Now is the time to embrace them, come what may. Yes, we can pay Detroit now. But mark my words: we will pay for it later.

The viability plans presented by Chrysler and GM to the US Treasury and the public yesterday signaled the end game. The plans amount to nothing more than begging for enough cash to stay afloat until the market turns upwards. Not only are the automakers’ arguments based on flawed assumptions about the US car market, but they singularly fail to address the fundamental problems that brought Chrysler and GM to their knees. The fact that anyone would take these pleas seriously indicates the simple triumph of fear and over common sense. You’d have to be willfully ignorant not to see these plans as the worst kind of cheap fiction. Well, maybe not so cheap . . .

Of the two submittals, Chrysler’s plan was worse. It was a non-plan. To start, Chrysler pointed to its reduction in warranty claims, its lower rate of recalls, and other “proof positive” of a turnaround in quality which justifies further Federal money into the money pit called Chrysler. Too bad all the quality rating folks like JD Power and Consumer Reports still rank Chrysler at or near the bottom.

And when the total number of rigs on the road sold in the last few years goes down, warranty payments should be reduced as well. Funny thing, Chrysler’s total sales have dropped about as much as their warranty claims in the last three years.

As for future vehicles? Nothing but speculative hype about future cars from Planet Gullible. And by the way, ChryCo’s cutting three vehicles previously destined for death (Aspen, Durango, and PT Cruiser). But there’s a new Grand Cherokee coming! And Fiat with its “not ready for American prime time” Euro cars. Perhaps Fiat should be talking to the Saturn dealers instead?

Chrysler’s first lien bank lenders have not agreed to any cuts whatsoever. Why would they? They’ve got priority over the government loans already. The UAW hasn’t agreed to the cut in the health care VEBA for retirees (same goes for GM too). And by the way, Chrysler needs an additional $5B to keep going.

The coup-de-jour: Jim Press said that the dealers stepped up in February and ordered 78k rigs—thanks to $2k of dealer cash. And who do you think paid for this channel stuffing? Hey, Jim, what happens in March when your 150-day supply of cars becomes 180 days? How big will the bribe be then?

GM’s plan was too late. It’s the plan that should have been implemented in 2005. Saab will return to Sweden—if the government there forks over the 17 kroner necessary. Otherwise Saab will be toast by the end of the month. Saturn and HUMMER will wither and die—unless Chindia gets tired of waiting for a C7 liquidation.

Don’t think so. India’s auto tycoons aren’t stupid; they’ve watched Ratan Tata drive Land Rover/Jaguar straight over the metaphorical bridge to nowhere. Mahindra & Mahindra has stopped making noises about entering the US with rough and tumble SUVs and chicken tax surmounting mid-size pickups. China may buy a US brand or they may not. If they do, GM will get pennies on the dollar, if not actually having to pay someone to make Saturn, Saab and HUMMER go away.

In fact, no matter what, GM’s going to have to pay to make its excess brands disappear. Wagoner faced the cameras yesterday and blithely assured reporters that GM would fight terminated dealer franchise dealer lawsuits on a state-by-state basis. All together now: who’s paying for that? And speaking of money . . .

GM said they need another $18B (on top of the $13B already received) to make the plan work. And that’s before we get to the UAW retiree health care issue, the cost of mopping-up Delphi, guarantees to suppliers, and god-knows-what-else. That doesn’t include the Section 136 loan money (none given so far) authorized and appropriated for “viable” auto companies and parts suppliers to improve fuel economy.

When does it stop? Or is that where? GM is also holding a gun to Europe, Canada, Britain, Thailand and Australia, extorting money to keep its operations going.

Truth be told, we don’t know the total bailout funding required. Figure $40B-$50B dollars as a lowball estimate. And that’s just short term misery extrapolated over five years (Comrade). Let’s not forget the US pension contributions due in 2013/2014. Or shall we?

This is bad craziness. Never mind the cost. Or the fact that the bailout is doomed to failure. Government money provided to private enterprise on this basis completely distorts the function of the marketplace. It rewards incompetence. It perpetuates incompetence. The bailout does nothing to address GM’s fundamental inability to sustain car brands with class-leading products. Nor can it. It is not the government’s responsibility to pick a winner in a free market. Nor is it the government’s responsibility to “save” a loser.

Ever heard a movie hero say, “It sounds simple, but it just might work!”? Humans have a natural tendency to over-complicate problems and, thus, devise inherently delicate solutions. Have a look at Operation Eagle Claw, the 1980 Iranian hostage rescue attempt. Or, consider the upcoming Presidential Task Force on Autos. The PTFA will waste countless hours with Chrysler and GM auto execs, union reps, dealer council chiefs, supplier supremos, investment bankers, outside analysts and not a single average car buyer. They will devise a clever plan that will please no one and fix nothing. What a waste. In this case, all the Obama administration need do is nothing whatsoever.

Chrysler and GM are trussed-up with ropes made of Gordian knots. Their brands are a disaster, but they can’t kill brands without violating 50 states worth of franchise laws. Their debt is mountainous, but they can’t get the paper holders to swap obligations for equity. They can’t shut excess to capacity factories, but they can’t afford not to shut factories. They can’t work with United Auto Workers (UAW) work rules, but they can’t get rid of them. The need to improve their products STAT, but they can’t afford to and, even if they could, the market sucks.

The best way to sort this out: bankruptcy. But since we’re paying people to over-analyze the situation, let’s drill down.

Debt

Assuming GM can eliminate $18B of unsecured bond debt, they’ll still need at least $18B of new debt ($9.4B already advanced so far by Uncle Sam and the need for an equal amount more a certainty than not) thus netting a debt reduction of zero. Nothing to see here folks, move on.

And Chrysler? There’s zero chance of its bank lenders ($7B owed) of swapping anything. The parts are worth more than the whole and they’ll get (most of) their money back after selling off the minivan plant, Jeep, and anything else which they’ve got covered by security agreements. But Chrysler took on $4B from the government and is looking for $3B more. That’s a total of $7B—exactly the same amount as the existing bank debt. So eliminating existing bank debt and taking on IOUs to Uncle Sam places the company back where it started.

Union obligations

Bringing union wages and work rules into parity with transplants’ might be helpful in the long run, but labor costs represent under 10 percent percent of Chrysler and GM’s total running expenses. And we’re only talking about US labor—not for the rest of GM’s (crumbling) global empire. At best, a new deal with the UAW might save GM North America a billion dollars. Not enough to right a ship that’s losing $2B+ a month in cash flow. Chrysler’s rapidly shrinking workforce and increasingly undesirably product portfolio render any union cost discussion irrelevant. Period.

In terms of the automakers’ obligations to stuff their union’s health care superfund with cash, the UAW won’t go there. Unless they can get the US government (that’s you and me) to guarantee the proposed paper. If that happens, his retiree flock will realize Barack Obama’s dreams: guaranteed health care above and beyond existing Medicare/Medicaid coverage. Obama can’t be that stupid, right?

But even if he gets this guarantee, GM and Chrysler both have to still come up with billions of dollars before January 1, 2010, to fund the new VEBA anyways. And where is that money supposed to come from? Profits and positive cash flow in 2009? Not a chance.

So the take so far—assuming even these companies can hit the targets outlined by the government for the loans—is that it’s still not enough to keep these companies afloat. Existing debt swapped for new paper plus new government debt nets nothing. No savings. A zero change in the debt balances. The new VEBA still will require a cash down payment—a non-trivial amount too. And labor savings that might provide value later but are relatively meaningless in the depressed car market of 2009.

Brand, model and dealer reductions

How much will this cost without a bankruptcy? Dealers won’t go away quietly in the night. They’ve got an army of state attorney generals to protect them. And while Saturn might be a “new kind of car company” with operating agreements, not franchises, among its dealers, it won’t prevent lawsuits. GM can’t give away Saab or Hummer at any price so no easy out there. And it’s not clear that Chrysler could even kill one brand amongst its troika without inflicting a mortal wound. (Assuming it’s worth saving Chrysler.)

Conclusion

All that’s filler, of course. The only thing that needs saying, or doing: let both companies go into bankruptcy now, without crafting any governmental solution whatsoever to prevent it. Then we can see what’s worth saving and how much it will cost. Simple, eh?

TTAC proofreader and Editor Jeff Puthuff has been helping me chase down the Chrysler–Cerberus story, trying to identify the automaker’s secret co-investors. In the midst of that pursuit, Jeff has unearthed this heretofore unreported document: “U.S. Motor Vehicle Industry: Federal Financial Assistance and Restructuring” Dec. 3. 2008 (Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress).” The Congressional Research Service (CRS) drafted the report for elected representatives contemplating whether or not to loan Chrysler and GM money to prevent their bankruptcy. The U.S. Senate and House of Representatives eventually failed to create a bill to fund the loans (though not for lack of trying). Then-president Bush stepped in at the eleventh hour and provided $17.4b worth of federal loans, by stretching the provisions of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). There are some startling—and not so startling—insights.

Widely quoted Center for Automotive (CAR) Research Study Debunked, Rejected

A general criticism of this analysis is that it assumes that the suppliers and all other automakers, aside from the the initially failed company or companies, would see their output drop to zero, and that they would be merely passive observers of an industry collapse. There are many examples in recent years of bankrupt or financially distressed suppliers being supported by their OEM customers, or by other suppliers that acquire parts of the business to gain new contracts or to be able to continue servicing their own contracts from a failed subassembly producer…

While CAR posits, for the sake of analysis, that, in the first year, no auto manufacturing in the United States could survive a major Detroit 3 bankruptcy, in actuality, such an extreme outcome is unlikely. Immediate and radical restructurings among suppliers is a more likely outcome, and other brands would continue to produce.

U.S. Auto Manufacturing Employment Declining Generally, Anyway

Automotive manufacturing employment has also fallen as a share of total employment in manufacturing. While total manufacturing employment has fallen by more than three million jobs since September 2001, employment in motor vehicle manufacturing dropped at an even faster rate, with its share of total manufacturing employment falling from 7.4% to 6.4%. During this period, total automotive sector employment, including services fell from 5.1 million to 4.6 million, while total U.S. employment grew by six million. As a result, automotive employment, including both manufacturing and services, as a share of total U.S. employment, fell from 3.9% to 3.3%.

GM – Chrysler Shotgun Marriage Still An Option

GM’s plan to acquire Chrysler and merge the two companies, which was widely reported in October 2008, was similarly withdrawn when the companies could not find sufficient funds, including proposed federal financial support, for the deal. The plan could still be resurrected as part of a general plan of government financial assistance for the Detroit 3.

Chrysler / GM Chapter 11 Could Increase Consumer Confidence

One might question whether the recent urgent requests for financial assistance do not diminish consumer confidence at least as much as would a bankruptcy filing designed to reorganize the company and lead to financial viability . . . filing under Chapter 11 could boost consumer confidence in the troubled automakers.

Feds Could Back Vehicle Warranties

If Congress finds that concern about warranty coverage is an issue that would doom a reorganization, it could be possible to provide for alternative warranty coverage. This might be funded with premiums paid by automakers, similar to premiums paid by financial institutions to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

Loan Default Risk

However, direct loans from the federal government commit government money more immediately than would loan guarantees. Several have questioned the advisability of extending such loans, fearing that the troubled automakers may be unable to repay them even if the loan terms are very favorable.

Loans Could Leave Federal Government SOL

Under current bankruptcy law, the loans, if unsecured, would enjoy no priority status under 11 U.S.C. § 507. This means that the government potentially could “stand in line” with the other non-priority unsecured creditors and ultimately might receive only a few pennies for each dollar of outstanding loan balance. In the worst case, there might be no funds to divide between these creditors.

Chrysler Pension Plan Funding Unknown

As a privately-held company, Chrysler is not subject to the same SEC reporting requirements as are GM and Ford. Current information about pension plans was not available at the time this CRS report was written.

Loans Less Onerous Than Previous ChryCo Guarantees

By comparison to the broadly defined elements of these plans, the Chrysler loan guarantee legislation of 1980 was far more prescriptive in exchange for a loan guarantee that was worth far less than the $25 billion requested by the Detroit 3 in 2008, even allowing for inflation.

Clearly, the U.S. Congress had enough information to know that providing GM and Chrysler with federal loans was an extremely risky not to say stupid idea. As did President Bush. By making these loans, the president pushed “the Detroit problem” down the line to president-elect Obama.

The bottom line: adding more fuel to Chrysler and GM’s pyre is just as boneheaded now as it was then.

Ever since bailout measures for the auto industry were first mooted, free market detractors whispered “WTO.” Nobody took it seriously. True, according to the World Trade Organization’s rules, direct subsidies are not allowed. But it’s equally important to note that the 153-member quango has never put a single issue to a vote since its birth in 1995. Consensus governance means that as long as nobody complains, and especially, as long as everybody plays the same game, the WTO hangs fire on principle. Auto industry loans? They’re all doing it. Still, there is a line a WTO member mustn’t cross. And America almost crossed it.

Recent amendments to Uncle Sugar’s near-as-dammit trillion dollar economic stimulus package would require US firms to use local steel and other components in state-funded projects. The provision kicked sand in the face of the WTO’s raison d’être: the most favored nation (MFN) rule.

Under the terms of the MFN rule, a WTO member must apply the same conditions on all trade with other WTO members. The provision also applies to trade within and without a given nation. “Imported and locally-produced goods should be treated equally (at least after the foreign goods have entered the market).” To do otherwise constitutes blatant protectionism.

Similar buy local protectionist measures have been adopted or considered in Argentina, China, Indonesia, Ecuador, India, Russia (re: imported used cars) and Vietnam. All seven WTO member nations have landed on a WTO ­surveillance list.

The Guardian writes that the European Union (EU) is pissed with the “buy American” bailout provision. They’ve threatened legal action and retaliatory measures against the US if the Obama administration enshrines this clause in its multibillion-dollar economic stimulus package. Brussels said it could take the US to the World Trade Organization for breaching treaty rules.

The warning came just a day after Joaquín Almunia, EU economic and monetary affairs commissioner, pointed to “clearly protectionist measures” emanating from Washington. The EU ambassador to Washington has expressed similar concerns. A spokesman for Lady Ashton, EU trade commissioner, said: “If the provisions that are finally passed by the US Senate and approved by President Obama infringe the provisions of the GPA [general procurement agreement], to which the US is a signatory, then this is something we will have to consider taking them to the WTO over.”

Compared to previous hints and “concerns,” this amounts to a barrage of warning shots. Amid fears that the US and other countries could trigger a disastrous 1930s-style “Great Depression” trade war through protectionist blocks on trade, the European commission highlighted similar moves in Europe.

A French €10b aid program requires firms to source components solely from France, keep only the French plants open and scrap plans to “de-localize” jobs to elsewhere in the EU. Neelie Kroes, EU competition commissioner, will warn French ministers in talks in Brussels that state aid must not only comply with competition rules but also with EU laws on freedom of movement and capital. “They have to realize that once they start down that protectionist path it’s a descent into chaos,” her aides said.

On Tuesday, U.S. President Barack Obama signaled fear that Buy American provisions—supported by Democrats in steel-producing and economically distressed states—would trigger a trade war at a time when the global economy is in dire straits.

On Wednesday, lawmakers voted to soften the controversial “Buy American” provisions in the proposed U.S. economic stimulus package. The amendment, approved by the Senate, requires the Buy American provisions be “applied in a manner consistent with U.S. obligations under international agreements.” Which is like saying you can burgle a house as long as you don’t break the law.

The bottom line for carmakers: even if America’s avoided a trade war (for now), they can’t win.

If the feds restrict the bailout buffet to The Big 2.8 and domestic production, they run the risk of retaliatory measures from neighbors—and markets—around the globe.

And don’t forget it’s a small world after all. In the run-up to the meltdown, Motown’s automaker practically demanded that its suppliers outsource abroad. By now, keeping the suppliers’ share of the domestics’ business within U.S. borders will be more about spin than compliance. Especially if those suppliers receive their requested $20.5b bailout.

On the other hand, if the feds don’t limit their largess to domestic producers, they run the very real risk of alienating whatever voter and/or union support exists for the pork barrel parade. A billion dollars of TARP money for Brazil? Esqueça-se.

On a practical basis, a truly “fair” bailout would put the domestics at a disadvantage.

Think of it this way: the existing Chrysler loans are equivalent to a current subsidy of $10k per vehicle sold. If, instead, you offered American car buyers $10k off a car, they wouldn’t buy a Chrysler. Clearly, you couldn’t offer the discount certificate just to Chrysler buyers. What kind of country would that be? Welcome to Bailout Nation.

Point three of Barack Obama’s ethics pledge to the American people is that “no political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration.” Obviously that’s a high standard, and one that seems increasingly important as the lines between government and industry are blurred by rampant bailouts. And clearly not everyone makes the cut. But as Obama assembles a team to “restructure” the auto industry, the spirit (if not the letter) of his ban on revolving door hiring seems to be falling by the wayside.

According to the Detroit News, the leading candidate for Obama’s “Car Czar” position is a certain Mr Steven Girsky, who the DetN describes as a “longtime auto industry analyst.” Having advised Centerbridge Industrial Partners and JP Morgan on auto issues, Girsky is more than simply an analyst. Automotive News [sub] reported in October of 2008 that Girsky was hired by the United Auto Workers to advise on the proposed Chrysler-GM merger and as AN dryly put it “he may also advise the UAW on a possible federal bailout of the U.S. automakers.” Girsky was also a consultant to GM’s CEO and CFO for just under a year, leaving the firm in 2006. As of October 2008, he also served on the board of Dana Corp, a massive auto supplier firm.

Does Girsky’s experience make him incapable of living up to Obama’s high moral standards? Technically, no. Like Tom Daschle before him, Girsky is clearly a lobbyist, though he’s not registered as one (the de facto bright line rule for Obama). But having been paid by the UAW within months to advise them on bailout strategy, he’s also clearly not going to live up to the “no work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years” standard. And if he is appointed as Car Czar, it’s safe to say that he will be guiding regulations and money disbursements that are “substantially related” to the work he has been doing for the UAW.

But as with so many political decisions, the choice of a Car Czar will likely be decided on the lesser of two evils. After all, Girsky may be steeped in the cozy relationships between GM management, the UAW and the government, but at least he has industry experience. Steven Rattner of Quadrangle Group has also been named as a possible czar, but as Newsweek reports, his main qualifications appears to be as a Democratic fundraiser (he is married to the National Finance Chairwoman of the DNC) and media-elite insider. Sure he covered energy and economy beats at the NY Times back in the day, but there’s little to indicate that he would make an especially good Car Czar.

Meanwhile, for all of Girsky’s industry connections, some of his ideas are decidedly TTAC-ish. Like when he got AN Executive Editor Edward Lapham‘s collar up by suggesting [sub] that the Detroit Three might need to cut as many as 70 percent of its dealerships. He even seems to cause some consternation among his UAW employers, based on this post at Salon. And that might just indicate the kind of experience and perspective that Obama’s team clearly needs. After all, his Climate and Energy Czar Carol Browner told Automotive News [sub] at the DC Auto Show that there are “lots of clean cars out there and options for the consumer.” You know, because the OEMs say so.

Meanwhile, it seems that nothing will stop or slow the rolling tide of money that is about to slosh into the automotive industry. $2b worth of battery research money is said to be going into the forthcoming stimulus package, and the Senate just approved an amendment to the stimulus bill which would make auto loan interest and state sales taxes deductable from federal taxes. Whether Girsky or Rattner is appointed as Car Czar won’t likely make much of a difference in terms of the amount of money that will be funneled into the industry over the following years. The crucial distinction is whether experience is worth the possibility of a conflict of interest.

Obama’s strict ethical standards are admirable, but if his options for Car Czar are between an industry insider who defines the term “revolving door” and a candidate who is being considered solely due to his political connections, something has clearly gone wrong. I’m not sure this kind of compromise is what people had in mind when they voted for “change we can believe in.” But in this familiarly frustrating choice, at least Girsky has a record of taking stands on crucial issues facing the industry. If he can publicly explain his recent UAW dealings in a way that passes Obama’s muster, Girsky may actually be the least of the available evils.

In fourteen days, GM and Chrysler will submit realistic plans for viability to Congress. See what I did there? With January’s sales slaughter revealed, it’s obvious neither automaker can survive without a huge and ongoing injection of working capital from the nation’s working capitol. Even if Uncle Sam provides this staggering amount of money (more than enough to start a car company from scratch), GM and Chrysler wouldn’t make enough profit to pay the interest and the principal during the loan’s term. The plans the automakers are about to present to your elected representatives are a fictional moon shot—with a make-believe launch vehicle that couldn’t propel a chimpanzee ten feet.  

Chrysler will point to its deal with FIAT as their lifesaver. In truth, it’s nothing more than a “free look” for the Italians to figure out what pieces of Chrysler they want to buy when the liquidation sale begins.

Worse, if Congress bails out Chrysler with more of YOUR dollars, the deal gets even sweeter for FIAT. Entry to the US market on the back of the taxpayers, a significant ownership stake and eventual control (for $25m) of Chrysler and the time to try and make it all work. That’s some plan. For FIAT.

But here’s the kicker. Nardelli says Chrysler needs “only” three billion dollars more of your money to get there. Are Bob Corker and Dick Shelby the only two guys in Washington that can see the sheer and utter stupidity of this? It’s as clear as daylight that this dog won’t hunt.

What’s the point of throwing $7b (or more) into a company that has no reason to exist in the US market?  A company that needs import technology for small cars and engines to meet the new standards from the Green Party? Heck, save our money and let FIAT come in on their own.

In GM’s case, the plan will look like everything else Wagoner and his team have presented in the past. Goals and actions that have no hope of realization. So far, the UAW hasn’t made the accommodations required—and never will—to the terms of wage/benefit/work rule parity with the transplants.

The unsecured bondholders and other financial creditors might take a cramdown BUT . . . one of the most skillful members of this group (PIMCO) has already pulled out of the negotiations. How about restructuring of the brands and dealer network? They’ll reveal their latest “no plan” plan (i.e., “we’re still reviewing all options”).

The facts are self evident. GM alone lost 122k units of sales in January 2009 versus last year. At an average wholesale to GM of say $24k/unit, that’s a loss of nearly $3b in revenues for the month. Or a run rate of $36b/year. Throw in the drop in sales in Europe and elsewhere around the world, and it might be another $1b to $2b dollars a month in lost revenues. Combined, it could be as much as $50b revenue hit (annualized) for the first half of this year. GM simply can’t cut its expenses fast enough.  

As for Chrysler, it’s worth repeating what Jim Press told his dealers. (“Without orders, the company has to liquidate.”) Uh Jim, your dealers have over 350k units on the ground and you sold 62k units in January. Do you really expect them to “stock up” now?

Bottom line: the car market will suck for the next six months, if not longer. It makes no sense for Congress, the President or the Car Czar to try and craft a plan that saves Detroit with taxpayer dollars without a bankruptcy.

GM and Chrysler have no viability plan that can work in the current sales environment (not that they had one during better times). If anything, now IS the time for bankruptcy, not later. Let the bankruptcy court system do what it’s designed to do best: figure out what’s worth saving (GM) and what’s not (Chrysler).

When the market does come back—and it will—a restructured and reorganized GM will be well suited to offer a smart and sensible line of brands, cars, and dealers that will all earn substantial profits. Parts of Chrysler will still exist (Jeep, Mopar, a couple of others). And Ford might be able to survive on its own as it gains share from the pieces shed by its Detroit rivals.

Why go to all this trouble of proving a case that doesn’t meet the sniff test to the most junior financial analyst on Wall Street? Is it pure politics to save union jobs and avoid the shame of bankruptcy? Or has Washington, DC and the Messiah Crew (Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the Democrats in Congress) simply lost all sense of the common good with your tax dollars?

Forget it. Let’s not spend any more taxpayer dollars on a moon shot from Detroit.

We are like fish, swimming wide-eyed through an ocean of blood, that no longer taste the horror in which we are suspended. On Dec. 19th, eight days after the automotive bailout bill failed in the senate, former President George W. Bush used his executive power to direct $13.4 billion to the automotive industry—$9.4 billion for General Motors and $4 billion for Chrysler. This is a measure only 36 percent of the country supported, according to a December CNN poll. The cost of this bailout will be tossed atop the $10.6 trillion U.S. debt, according to the treasury. This is a debt our generation will be forced to spend its lifetime repaying.

To add insult to injury, one of the first things Chrysler did with its money was take out a full-page, color ad in The Wall Street Journal and USA Today entitled “Thank You America — thank you for investing in Chrysler” signed by Bob Nardelli, Chrysler’s CEO and Chairman.

It’s hard to imagine something more disgusting.

Usually when one says “investing,” one refers to voluntarily exchanging money for a share in future profits. But the “investing” of Bush’s executive order was involuntary. It occurred not through the invisible hand of the free market but through the iron fist of government power. 

To call this “investing” is to kidnap and call it a date. To call this “investing” is to enslave and insist that it is employment. To call this “investing” is to rape and plead that it is lovemaking.

One does not have to be an economic expert to appreciate the reality of this situation. The government finances the automakers’ bailout through taxation, through you.

If you do not pay your taxes, then you will receive a court summons. If you do not answer your court summons, then men with guns will come to your door. If you resist them, then you will be shot.

The Detroit Bailout—like all bailouts and all government action—is made possible by the threat of violence. This is the gun in the room Nardelli wants you to ignore. This is the gun that forces Nardelli to lie.

As Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote, “violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence. Any man who has once proclaimed violence as his method is inevitably forced to take the lie as his principle.”

If one wishes to speak with honesty and clarity about our society, one must begin by pointing out the difference between voluntary and coercive action; and by pointing out the gun.

This is the gun that forces people to act against their self-interest. This is the gun that damns politicians to a lifetime of deceit and bribery. This is the gun that both political parties will gladly wield in exchange for the glories of political power.

Despite having to crawl to Congress late last year, Chrysler was stable enough to donate almost $900,000 to political causes in the latest election cycle. United Auto Workers, who begged and pleaded alongside them, gave more than $2 million to the Democrats in 2008, according to opensecrets.org. These voluntary measures, unlike the bailout, could be considered an investment.

When Bush used his executive power to pay back Chrysler, the democratic process failed to represent the will of the people. But we still have the ability to vote with our dollars. The next time you need to buy a car, don’t feel pressured to “Buy American.”

My five-year-old looked into the bag and spied the chocolate-covered strawberry. “Just one?” she asked with equal parts indignation and incredulity. “That cost me six bucks,” I responded defensively. “I wish they were cheap,” Lola said as the treat succumbed to dental destruction. “Then we could have lots.” And there you have it: proof that price conquers all. If Godiva wants to sell me a dozen chocolate strawberries, all they have to do is lower the price. Dramatically. Of course, they can’t do that. Ingredients, labor, transportation, administration, marketing, rent, fancy bags– it all adds up. By the same token, there’s only one way automakers seeking to sell vehicles cars in today’s market can stimulate sales: slash their prices by 50 percent or so. Of course, they can’t do that. Or can they?

If GM and Chrysler declare bankruptcy on Monday, they can sell their cars for whatever the market will bear. Which, at this point, would be a lot less than it costs to make them. Same old, same old. The ailing American automakers have been selling cars at a loss for over a decade. Even so, The Mother of All Fire Sales would mean the end of Chrysler and GM as we know them. Without any pretense of profit, the whole house of cards would collapse. Tens of thousands of jobs would disappear. But the price collapse would clear the lots and get the U.S. new car market back in gear. 

Ask a five-year-old: everything sells at a price. The U.S. economy could be in a full-scale depression and new cars would still sell– if they were cheap enough. Anyone fancy a Chevy Malibu for $10k? Or a Jeep Cherokee for $12k? On the negative side, ultra-cheap cars would kick residual values off a cliff, locking even more people into their current whip. After the initial bonanza, the new car market may take a long time to recover. 

On the positive side, the fire sale would provide access to better quality cars for a lot of low income buyers. Parts makers, service providers, gas stations– they’d all be better off. As supply lowered to demand, and then eventually recovered, the remaining automakers would benefit. Not to mention the profits provided by an industry-wide labor cost reduction (i.e. the disappearance of the United Auto Workers).

Yes, well. For reasons that will perplex historians for decades, President Bush decided to turn his back on free market principles and bail out the U.S. auto industry. As a result, the taxpayer is now supporting the price of automobiles. 

So far, Uncle Sam has committed roughly $50b to the U.S. car industry. Let’s say ’09 sales clock in at 10m units. That’s a $5k subsidy per car. That’s if you spread the sales amongst all the companies offering new cars for sale in the U.S. If you assume that the domestics get the lion’s share of the bailout bonanza, and round-up their market share to 50 percent, that’s a whopping $10k per car.

If the total federal swag swells to $100b– a credible enough prediction when you add in big bucks for battery research, various tax credits for alt power vehicles, more “loans” for GM, Ford’s line of credit, suppliers’ call on the public purse, money for formerly captive credit companies, etc– we could be looking at a $20k per car federal price support. Add in another $50b– well, you can see where this is going.

Truth be told, your taxes are paying people to build cars that no one wants. Or, if you factor in the extended holiday break, we’re paying people to not build cars that people don’t want.

Perception gap be damned; Detroit’s cars aren’t fundamentally undesirable. They’re just too expensive. The bailout has singularly failed to change that fact. Nor will it. But that’s how government works: whatever it touches become less efficient. And there are other costs…

When the laws of supply and demand operate in a relatively unmolested marketplace, the consumer has the final say on a product’s worth, and the company’s survival. Now that GM and Chrysler have latched onto the federal teat, they are destined to be [even more] disconnected from consumer demand. 

In fact, GM and Chrysler are no longer answerable to the consumer. Forget “viability.” They must now satisfy politicians rather than the “end user.” Who knows what harm these pols will inflict on the automakers– and the car market in general– in the name of political correctness? American Leyland, here we come.

Yes, yes. Politicians already call the shots, what with Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, E85 subsidies, safety, etc. But even those who favor government fiat in such matters must surely realize there’s a line that should not be crossed. It’s one thing to regulate, another to control the means of production. Or, as Lola said, “does anyone else make chocolate strawberries?”

After a weekend of concept-touting and audacious hoping, Detroit is praying that the bitter taste of bailout beggary will be cleansed by the redemptive powers of PR. From the sight of hundreds of rallying GM workers to a lineup of future concepts, the North American International Auto Show played host to a number of highly-managed media messages aimed at convincing skeptics that it’s no longer such a lonely world for American automakers. But the emphasis on public relations highlights how far Detroit still has to go, and fails to mask the desperate need for, well, bankruptcy. And while cheerleaders for a largely-imagined Detroit renaissance hold on to that feeling, time marches remorselessly on.

The unifying theme of Detroit’s campaign for hearts and minds: a throwback to the good old days. Back when city boys were the plucky, working class heart of the nation. “Detroit: not a town of quitters,” is how the Freep‘s Sarah A Webster frames the argument, Webster posits that a car wash billboard on Woodward Ave– which reads “never give up”– exemplifies this civic pride. “For all I know,” writes Webster, “it’s been up there for years.” Which is a major part of the problem. Detroit’s automakers have been in savage decline for so long that most Americans don’t even know what they would come back to become.

Webster notes that she “quite ironically” first noticed the sign’s long-running message of not quitting “on Dec. 12, the morning after the U.S. Senate voted against lending Detroit’s automakers the $14 billion they sought to survive the global economic downturn.” At that dark hour, the sign on Woodward shone like a beacon of hope to Webster after “Congress had just voted to turn the lights out on the Motor City.” As a “darkest moment before sunrise” though, this hardly inspires the kind of faith and sympathy that Detroit is clearly looking for. It simply highlights the new reality of Detroit as an oversized, reality-ignoring, bailout-begging hype machine.

Motown’s plucky, blue-collar image overhaul depends on prodding Americans to reach back to a decades-old model of a successful, competitive Detroit. To pull off its Lazarus risen act, Detroit must also hide the fact that the road to redemption doesn’t lead through River Rouge or Hamtramack. It comes in the form of government checks. And this causes internal discord, cognitive dissonance and a renewed emphasis on style over substance.

Should Chrysler not be “stung” by GMAC’s extra $6b worth of TARP loving? After all, if one American automaker can have its self-destructive incentive binges underwritten by the government, shouldn’t they all? Besides, if Chrysler can convince no less than the LA Times‘ Dan Neil that its 200C concept is a “real-world car” and that it “will be available in two years” (actual car courtesy of Nissan), isn’t that good enough for some know-nothing congressmen?

With Obama’s vast stimulus under debate in the new congress, the Detroit Auto Show was not a showcase of the consumer-driven products that the once-big three can put on the showroom floor. It was a message to lawmakers that Detroit could fulfill their politically-driven goals as long as the checks keep coming. And the transition from a consumer-driven culture in Detroit (if such a thing ever existed) to a politically-driven one shouldn’t be difficult.

GM, Chrysler and Ford executives are forever bemoaning the American consumer’s ignorance of their product’s self-evident desirability. And the oft-touted “perception gap” is much easier to tackle among easily-influenced subsidy check signers in DC than it is among financially struggling Americans.

AdAge reports that a $50m effort to revamp the image of American automakers in the minds of consumers is failing to gain traction, despite David E. Davis’ midwifery and the blessing of Lee Iaccoca. Ford is especially trying to distance itself from these efforts, rightly believing that associating itself with the PR efforts of tax money-guzzlers is counterproductive, at least in terms of consumer opinion.

Now that GM and Chrysler are on the dole, they can not deny that they have lost their way. As TTAC’s Ken Elias wrote this morning, decades of denial can only be swept away with a quick admission of guilt and a plausible vision of a brilliant future. But Detroit chases feelings of nostalgia and futurism while remaining stuck in a dismal and seemingly eternal present.

Detroit has singularly failed to understand that the classic American narratives of rebirth and redemption begins with a dark night of the soul– not a trip to DC to ask Santa for a multi-billion dollar bailout. A bankruptcy reorganization would not only have given GM and Chrysler the tools to transform themselves, it would have given Americans a reason to cheer for new underdog brands, freed from their toxic legacies.

Instead, Detroit is trying to conjure up sympathy by ignoring the rules, begging for money and selling a future they know is out of reach without more handouts. And even, one must now conclude, with them.

A recent NY Times op ed gave plaudits to a Senate investigation held in the 1930’s to discover the causes of the Great Depression. But the power of congressional investigators is vastly overstated and overrated. They can be stymied by resourceful, deep-pocketed corporations. Considering the current attitudes of US automakers, it’s unrealistic to expect any voluntary disclosure to Congress, any meaningful disclosure to taxpayers. But, as the Bermie Maddoff liquidation shows, bankruptcy court is another matter entirely. The trustee in the Madoff liquidation/investigation can ask the bankruptcy court to authorize subpoenas, which can be used to compel production of documents and to compel witnesses to testify. The prospect literally scares GM and Chrysler witless.

Both GM and Chrysler have much to hide. Have hidden much. GM has a long and ignoble history of overstating and restating its accounts, by billions of dollars. In 2006, GM revised profit figures for six years previous, and restated reported earnings for 2005. There are also no less than three ongoing SEC investigations into its dealings. All secret.

The company’s CEO and Chairman (former Chief Financial Officer) Rick Wagoner has been moving money around for a long time– selling assets, arranging deferred payments to the union, negotiating with creditors of their bankrupt former subsidiary Delphi, creating financial instruments with the automaker’s financial arm (GMAC), transferring cash from GM’s international subsidies and much, much more. Despite the fact that the U.S. government is now on the hook for $17.4b in loans, we, the taxpayer, have not seen GM’s books.    

Cerberus, Chrysler’s private equity owner, and [still] the holder of a 49 percent share in the recently federally cash-infused GMAC ($6b), is also shrouded in secrecy. The Wall Street Journal recently unearthed the fact that Cerberus mortgaged Chrysler’s Auburn Hills HQ under its own name when it purchased Chrysler from Daimler. What else don’t we know? We don’t know how much rent Cerberus is charging Chrysler. We don’t know how much of Chrysler’s other assets Cerberus mortgaged to pay back private investors and/or raise capital. We don’t know what arrangements Cerberus made with GM re: GMAC.  

When GM and Chrysler went to Congress to plead their case for federal loans, politicians demanded a look at the books. Both automakers withheld “commercially sensitive” information. In other words, they received their money without full disclosure. When discussing their situation in front of the cameras, both automakers used terms that sounded like accounting terms– with no accepted meaning in accounting parlance. At the same time, GM and Chrysler deployed public relations groups to plant incomplete and misleading news articles, issue biased press releases, and draft op ed pieces that fooled main street media and confused any real disclosure. 

A Chapter 11 filing is a process of legal discovery. In a Chapter 11 case, the court forms an official committee/committees of creditors. Any official committee can ask the bankruptcy court to issue subpoenas relating to the company’s acts, conduct, property, liabilities and financial condition.

The subpoenas can compel company officers– and others– to produce documents. They can also force witnesses to testify under oath. Committees can use their investigative powers to try to find assets to pay creditors. For example, if the bankruptcy court could establish the exact financial relationship between GM NA and its foreign subsidiaries. By the same token, if GM made preferential payments to some creditors, the committee could reveal this fact. 

Committees also investigate transactions between a debtor company and its officers, directors and shareholders, seeking to determine if any improper transfers were made. If Cerberus leveraged Chrysler cash or assets to benefit Cerberus’ investors/shareholders and/or assumed debt that left Chrysler without sufficient operating capital, these facts will come out. 

While the public has a right to know where it’s money went, there are limits to what a bankruptcy investigation can expose. A creditors committee’s findings won’t become a public document. Investigatory depositions of company officers and directors are not open to the public. The committee is interested in getting the highest possible recovery for the group it represents, not a general disclosure of what went wrong and why.

That said, if criminal or illegal activities are exposed, the bankruptcy judge would refer the case to a criminal prosecutor. And leaks to the press are not uncommon. All of which means if GM or Chrysler were to file for C11, both companies would face intense scrutiny of their business dealings. 

Meanwhile, the absence of information about the current financial condition of GM or Chrysler and the detailed terms of  Treasury loans to automakers is deeply troublesome. Our new president has stated his commitment to a “higher standard of accountability and transparency.” It remains to be seen if he will do anything to require adequate disclosure by recipients of federal loans, or whether it will be business as usual. 

Either way, if and when federal bankruptcy court get involved with Chrysler, GM and/or Ford, it’s hardly likely that their management teams would emerge unscathed. In a battle between fear and greed, fear wins.

The President’s non-plan for saving the American auto industry actually works. Believe it or not, it’s a stroke of genius for what it doesn’t do. And that’s not forcing any change on the automakers other than to come up with yet another restructuring plan subject to certain government imposed guidelines. Readers of TTAC know that it’s almost a sure bet that this next round of restructuring will fail. And that’s why it’s such a smart plan. Bravo to Bush!

The set up is simple. Without funding, GM and Chrysler would have gone bankrupt. Under a sudden bankruptcy, billions of dollars in unpaid trade payables would have become pre-petition claims, unpaid, with little hope of recovery. OK; a bankruptcy judge would have put critical suppliers to the head of the queue. But the main point: the fragility of Detroit’s supply chain would have been… tested.

Thousands of dealers would go dark too. The automakers owe them a billion bucks or so for holdback, incentives, warranty, etc., which they would never see again. While still protected by a contract, labor would have a job on paper only. So doing nothing would have created a huge mess, and likely dragged Ford down the drain as well.

The President had to do something to keep these companies from really stinking up the place. Money was the only answer. Time was short. Thankfully, Congress failed to pass its own plan. Any such bailout bill would have become an endless quagmire: a triumph of political maneuvering over common sense, economic reality, and green-party mandated product decisions. Decision time for the chief executive. Well, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and company.

The plan’s brilliance: it doesn’t do enough. By design. It’s just enough money to keep the lights on for a few weeks. Sixty days, tops. During that time, both GM and Chrysler must come up with a restructuring program subject to the guidelines in the loan agreements. in a nutshell, these terms force labor wages and work rules parity with transplants, debt exchanges of two-thirds, rationalization of work force, dealers, and suppliers and achievement of a positive net present value (NPV) as a result. Don’t ask what that the NPV is calculated on; I’m not sure anyone knows. Loosely translated, it means “get your shit together.”

Of course, none of this restructuring will actually happen. The tide is heading out. We’re about to see what’s hidden beneath the water’s surface. Cue the scramble among all the parties to protect their own interests-– screw the other guy. Within two hours of the announcement, the United Auto Workers (UAW) asked President elect Barack Obama to remove the “onerous terms” imposed. Just wait until the debtholders-– bolstered by armies of lawyers– get into the act. And dealership rationalization? Look it up at ain’tgonna happen.com.

The bottom line: there can be no real restructuring without bankruptcy.

When all this comes out. Obama, the Congress and the rest of America will see the problem for what it is: a black hole.  There’s not now, nor will there ever be, enough public money to placate the hungry wolves. All taxpayers can do is offer GM and Chrysler another section on the bridge to bankruptcy.

GM gets more money than Chrysler, $9.4 billion more for a total of $13.4 billion. Why? ‘Cause GM has to make it. It will be one of two remaining domestic automakers remaining at the end of this process. Can’t let this behemoth run out of money sooner, only because we know that more money will come later in bankruptcy.

And for Chrysler, it only gets $4 billion, no more. And that won’t get it too far down the road. In fact, there’s no road either– this is just the beginning of the parceling of its valuable parts to others. Bankruptcy means death for the Pentastar. And to prevent Cerberus from running off with the government money by finding its way to Chrysler Finance, Paulson required the finance company to guarantee $2b of the bail out funds given to the Motor Company. Take that Mr. Feinberg!

Again, this bailout provides just enough money to keep the ships afloat for now. The false promises of management-led restructurings will never be realized. It’s a scramble for the table scraps. The President did the minimum necessary purposely. His team figured it was better to watch these companies self-implode– on someone else’s watch– than dictate the terms of the collapse. We’ll be watching.

I am going to go out on a limb…sort of…and state the following: GM will go into bankruptcy within the next 60 days, and Chrysler will be liquidated. Dollars to donuts that will be the President’s plan… although in a highly disguised form. The public may see it as a rescue, but it’s really just the beginning of a long and painful readjustment coming for Detroit. So how did I reach this conclusion? Follow the breadcrumbs. Given the time necessary to craft the President’s bailout plan – likely to be presented by this Friday – this tells me that it’s going to be much more than just a loan with a few strings. Methinks it will have three key points:

•    Immediate cash assistance to GM and Chrysler with adequate taxpayer protections;
•    Requirement to prepare a pre-packaged bankruptcy immediately; and
•    Assurance from the Government that it will provide guarantees to commercial lenders for the future DIP financing. And warranty guarantees for new car buyers.

Moody’s released a document this week outlining three possible scenarios for Detroit. Its most favored scenario, to which it ascribed a 70% probability, was “Pre Packaged Bankruptcy with Government Assistance.” Now how the heck could Moody’s possibly know that this was the most likely scenario? Oh wait, Mark Zandi, their on-board economist, did testify at the second automaker Congressional hearings that it would take $75 to $125 billion to restructure these companies without a bankruptcy.

The scary thing is that he’s right, and Secretary Paulson knows it and believes it. Hmmm, maybe the good Secretary did leak his thoughts to Moody’s so they could float this “pre-pack plan” out into the financial ether?

Second, during a live interview on CNBC on Tuesday afternoon, Hank “the Hammer” Paulson supported this conclusions. In his interview, Secretary Paulson outlined four elements in crafting the loan program:

•    Temporary bridge loan only;
•    Protect the taxpayer money advanced in a loan;
•    Make the automakers show a path to viability immediately by demonstrating shared sacrifice by all stakeholders; and
•    Avoid a disorderly failure of the companies.

This means that any funds advanced will be of short duration only – for the next 30 to 60 days – to enable GM and Chrysler to come up with a negotiated plan. And there’s no way Obama will reverse this. It’s becoming more obvious every day that only a bankruptcy filing can restructure these two companies. Congress and the new President will have little incentive – never mind the ability – to change the inevitable outcome. But wait, there’s more!

There will be a requirement for each company to fully collateralize any loans with assets that would remain outside a bankruptcy filing. For GM, this would be some blanket collateralization of its unencumbered ownership stakes in its foreign entities. (GM’s Mexican operations have already been pledged for its secured bank line of credit.) Chrysler’s lenders have a blanket encumbrance on the entire company. Either Cerberus will have to offer another asset or cash as collateral  or Chrysler goes away into the night.

And we’re going to get a “car czar” empowered by Treasury to manage the loan grants and upcoming bankruptcy proceedings. Look for Mitt Romney to become the “face of the government” upon the stakeholders– and he’s already written in the New York Times that bankruptcy is the only road to salvation.

The upshot of all of this: meltdown in Detroit. Ford has to pray that the liquidation of Chrysler goes smoothly, and that the shrinking of GM takes some time too. This will give their suppliers time to adjust to a new reality.

In the meantime, there will be great deals on GM and Chrysler products. Even with the plant shutdowns for January, there’s still a ton of iron sitting on dealer lots. And when the bankruptcy gets filed, the fire sale begins. Americans love a bargain, and new vehicles, even from a bankrupt automaker, can be sold at a price. But it’s also going to be the end for thousands of dealers.

So on Friday, the government will offer approximately $6b – $8b to GM, and a lesser amount to Chrysler, maybe only $4b – $6b. Collateralized. GM can do it. Chrysler can’t. There’s a gun to the head of the dog – put up something of equal value or don’t – you make the call Mr. Feinberg. In the end, it’s still going to be bankruptcy for both, with GM coming out the other side with Chevrolet and Cadillac, and Chrysler being parted out. Watch this space.