GM’s now-infamous advertisement touting the payback of government loans “may have elasticized the reality of things,” in the words of Steve Rattner, but stretching the truth apparently pays off. Automotive News [sub] reports that a London public perception-tracking firm surveyed some 5,000 consumers, and found that The General’s image has improved since the ad started running. Of course, on YouGov’s brand image scale of 100 to negative 100, GM is up only five points to “17.” Clearly there’s still work to do.
Find News by Subject:
Category: Bailout Watch
Three years after spinning off GMAC, with which it pioneered captive auto financing, General Motors may be considering a return to in-house finance. Bloomberg BusinessWeek reports that:
GM may buy back the GMAC business, start a new finance unit or form a partnership with banks and other lenders, said the people, who asked not to be identified because details are private. Chief Executive Officer Ed Whitacre wants to form an in-house lender before selling shares in GM as soon as the fourth quarter, one person said.
GMAC has received $17.2b in TARP aid, but recently announced a$172m Q1 profit despite concern over its bailout in congress. GM’s previous experience with in-house lending has been decidedly mixed: though GMAC was long a cash-cow for the automaker, the easy financing cashflow is said to have enabled a culture of apathy towards product development. When the credit market collapsed, GMAC went down like a ton of bricks… and would have taken GM (even further) down with it, had Rick Wagoner not spun it off and sold it to keep the lights on a little longer. In the short term, a captive finance unit might help a GM IPO, but the potential for falling back into old bad habits can’t be ignored.
Auto bailout mastermind Steve Rattner knows a thing or two about the truth. Just ask his former financial firm, Quadrangle. So, when asked by the Detroit News what he thought of allegations that GM mislead consumers with its “Payback” ad, he pulled a classic out of the thesaurus. The General, said Rattner,
may have slightly elasticized the reality of things.
And this is a real Corvette that went through a special “elasticizing machine” in the factory at Bowling Green, right?
Speaking at the same Detroit conference on the auto bailout that Steve Rattner and Ron Bloom attended, the Center for Automotive Research’s Sean McAlinden proclaimed the end of Detroit’s era of unsustainable high wages. In 2007, said McAlinden, building a car in North America cost GM about $1,400 more per car than it did Toyota, thanks largely to a $950 health care charge. Since then, GM’s bailout and renegotiated wage and benefit contracts with the union have actually brought GM’s hourly compensation to just under what the CAR says the transplants pay. The AP reports that McAlinden’s estimate of GM’s average hourly worker salary is $69,368 while the transplant average is $70,185. Better still is McAlinden’s prediction that
between 2013 and 2015, Toyota could even be paying $10 more per hour than GM unless the Japanese company reacts and lowers wages.
And all it took was giving the UAW a $17.5 stake in the new GM!
Chrysler crowed over its 9.1 percent market share in its Q1 results conference call yesterday, and though CEO Sergio Marchionne refused to be pinned down on an exact time frame, an IPO this year looks more likely than ever. Similarly, BusinessWeek reports that GM’s Ed Whitacre has hinted that a Q1 profit is likely, as is an IPO in Q4 of this year or early next year. This improvement in both bailed-out automakers was underlined by former Presidential Auto Task Force head Steve Rattner, who said the two firms were “meeting expectations,” at a Detroit-area conference. But Rattner also put his expectations into some context by saying
When we did this restructuring we never expected a full recovery of our investment. If it ends up costing us $10 billion we should consider it a success. For about $10 billion we avoided economic and human calamities… I would suggest that that’s a pretty effective cost of government stimulus
That assessment is down considerably from Rattner’s last prediction, which expected a taxpayer profit on the auto bailout.
Perhaps the most fundamental challenge facing bailed-out financial and auto firms is convincing consumers to leave aside their anti-bailout prejudices and start buying their products. For GM, the first step in this process was as simple as repaying a loan and airing a “Mission Accomplished” advertisement that did everything but show Ed Whitacre landing on an aircraft carrier. For GM’s former captive finance arm, GMAC, escaping the stain of the bailout is a more prosaic matter. Having already launched an online consumer-oriented banking arm by the name of “Ally Bank,” the finance company is adopting the innocuous Ally moniker for its entire business, reports the Detroit News.
Read More >
The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a public interest group dedicated to free enterprise and limited government, has filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, alleging that a recent advertisement from GM claiming to have “paid back government loans in full” is deceptive [full complaint in PDF here]. You might be able to guess why the CEI finds the GM ad so misleading, but if not, their explanation is after the jump.
Read More >
GM’s restructuring of its Opel division has long been seen as one of the greatest threats to The General’s US taxpayer-supplied cash pile, and the bleeding has now officially started. Reuters reports that GM has agreed to pay four hundred million Euros ($532,000) for worker termination benefits as it closes operations at its Opel plant in Antwerp, Belgium. The 2,600 employees who once built Opel Astras at the factory will be out of work by the end of the year, with about 1,250 planned to be terminated by June. The Flemish government has until September to find a new investor for the plant location; if it is successful, and the new tenant rehires the former Opel workers, GM could be off the hook for some of their termination costs. Considering that Europe has some of the worst auto overcapacity around though, the odds of another automaker taking over the plant don’t look good. Which means the fate of Opel’s Flemish workers, and the health of GM’s cash pile are likely in the hands of a non-auto industry investor. Meanwhile, with Opel planning on cutting 20 percent of its European capacity, the bleeding is only just beginning. But hey, is there a better use for American tax dollars than paying off European workers to the tune of $205k per job?
When former auto task force boss Steve Rattner’s former firm Quadrangle recently settled a “pay-to-play” corruption investigation, it threw Rattner under the bus, saying:
We wholly disavow the conduct engaged in by Steve Rattner, who hired the New York State Comptroller’s political consultant, Hank Morris, to arrange an investment from the New York State Common Retirement Fund. It is our understanding that Mr. Rattner also arranged a DVD distribution deal for a movie produced by the Chief Investment Officer’s brother in the middle of the investment decision-making process. That conduct was inappropriate, wrong, and unethical. Mr. Rattner is no longer with the firm and is not a part of today’s settlement. Quadrangle will fully cooperate in the Attorney General’s ongoing investigation of Mr. Rattner and others.
According to the DetN, that stinging indictment by Rattner’s former firm has inspired House Republicans to call for an investigation into whether Rattner was behind a deal in which some Delphi retirees lost their pensions while others didn’t.
Read More >
In response to Senator Chuck Grassley’s concern that GM’s claim to have paid back taxpayer loans was misleading, the US Treasury is now saying that it has no problem with The General’s statements. According to the Freep, a Treasury letter to Grassley explains that:
GM’s decision to pay off the loan signaled the automaker did not face “extraordinary expenses,” and that Treasury approved the loan payoff.
“The fact that GM made the determination and repaid the remaining $4.7 billion to the U.S. government now is good news for the company, our investment and the American people,” said Herbert Allison, assistant Treasury secretary for financial stability.
Strictly speaking, GM’s claim to have paid back all US Government loans is correct. The only issue is that GM’s ad touting the payback makes no reference to the fact that it still owes the Treasury upwards of $40b. If that misleads folks, well, apparently the Treasury Department isn’t going to do anything about it.
Read More >
[Hat Tip: You know who you are…]
Last week’s announcement that had Chrysler turned a Q1 profit and GM had “repaid” taxpayer loans brought a flurry of political posturing about the success or lack thereof of the auto bailout. With Republicans laying into the auto bailout from several angles, President Obama dedicated his weekly address to a defense of industry assistance. Obama still frames the bailout as an unpleasant necessity, but argues that last week’s news means the chances that taxpayers will recoup their “investment” are improving. And apparently the Treasury agrees. According to the Detroit News, Treasury has revised its estimate of auto bailout losses (not counting GMAC) downwards, from $30.6b to $28b. Progress, sure, but hardly a sign that taxpayers can expect full payback from its state-owned automakers.
With Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) already taking the White House and Treasury to task for possibly helping GM avoid paying the “TARP Tax,” Republican representatives Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Lamar Smith (R-TX) are attacking the auto bailout from another angle, writing a letter to nine automaker CEOs requesting clarification of the negotiating process that led to recently-passed final rules on a ramp-up of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards. In their press release on the issue, Issa and Smith note:
It is unclear whether the Administration used leverage created by the possibility of a taxpayer bailout of GM and Chrysler to secure their cooperation and support for new fuel economy standards. Moreover, there is reason to believe Administration officials used inappropriate tactics to ensure broad based support across the industry. Given the clear conflict-of-interest issues at play, which naturally arise when the government is in a position to pick winners and losers and impact the future viability of private entities, it was imperative that the Administration act with the utmost transparency. Instead, the White House imposed an unprecedented level of secrecy.
Are Issa and Smith on to something, or is this simply a partisan dogpile on an unpopular policy? Hey, this is politics… does it even matter?
While the White House and most of the media spent the last two days parroting GM’s claim that it “paid back” taxpayers, Senator Chuck Grassley was busy writing a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury [letter available in PDF here]. The three-page note opens:
Dear Secretary Geithner:
General Motors (GM) yesterday announced that it repaid its TARP loans. I am concerned, however, that this announcement is not what it seems. In fact, it appears to be
nothing more than an elaborate TARP money shuffle.
No surprises there: TTAC has been all over this ruse for months now. Grassley does sum the situation up nicely, stating that “A debt-for-equity swap is not a repayment,” but the most interesting part of his letter is his theory for why GM and the Administration approved the tax-money reshuffle. Thus far, we’ve assumed that PR was the driving concern in this transparent deception. According to Grassley though, there may be another reason…
Having laid into GM today for trumpeting a government loan repayment, it would be churlish not to point out that, by Detroit standards anyway, GM’s “partial refund” is actually kind of a big deal. Take today’s news from the nearly year-long liquidation of “Old CarCo,” the poisoned (in some cases, literally) remains of what was once “Bad Chrysler.” Bloomberg reports that the US Treasury’s $5b line of credit has been placed in the “unsecured” category of Old CarCo’s last debts, meaning recovery is “undetermined.” As in not so very likely at all.
Recent Comments