Bloomberg sat down with Car Czarlet Steve Rattner to find out what he learned from his recent visit to Detroit, and his answer should surprise nobody: the automakers need more cash. When asked if aid to GM and Chrysler could be as high as $30b to $40b, Rattner replied “It could be considerably higher, I won’t deny that.” Yikes. Or should we say, yawn. Who didn’t see this coming? The folks in charge, of course. “What they’ve asked for depends on them achieving plans that are somewhat ambitious,” Rattner said. “Like all management teams they tend to take a reasonably, slightly perhaps, optimistic view of their business. So it could be more, I can’t rule that out.” Does that explain Chrysler’s recent proclamation that it’s better off than GM? “There’s no real uptick, no real sense that the company would generate meaningful amounts of cash flow on a stand-alone basis,” Rattner says of the Pentastar mess. “We have not made a determination on whether they could exist on a stand-alone basis, but we do find their idea of partnership with Fiat a worthy idea to consider.” Rattner says the Presidential Task Force On Autos will give a sense of its direction before the March 31 deadline, and will likely set a hard date for union and bondholder concessions because, as Rattner puts it, “nobody wants to go first.”
I think it’s important to realize that the Detroit bailout is no longer an ideological battle. At the beginning of this $40 b-b-b-billion boondoggle (and counting), Motown-fed politicians defended the bailout by screaming “jobs! jobs! jobs!” even though the automakers themselves were screaming no such thing (aware as they no doubt were that those jobs! jobs! jobs! were doomed! doomed! doomed!). Now, you hear very little regarding “saving the middle class.” In fact, the rhetoric claiming we need to shell out for the domestics because “we must protect America’s industrial base” has also gone away. Now, Detroit’s new New Deal rests on a green platform (i.e., EVs), and depends entirely on “viability.” In other words, getting our freaking money back. Only not.
Well, you knew it would. But does it really matter? Now that both Chrysler and GM depend entirely on federal tax money for their survival, who cares if they don’t sell anything? OK, back up. America’s zombie automakers need to sell enough vehicles to maintain some sort of credibility as “viable” companies. But then they can just use the federal “loans” to subsidize lower prices and keep moving the metal, as Chrysler has done. Until, of course, they can’t. Because the general public is well and truly fed-up. First, James Brown sang “Living in America” not “Paying Taxes to Support Detroit.” At the same time, the MSM’s “will they/won’t they file for C11” coverage has buyers nervous about American Leyland’s warranties and residuals. And the two failing automakers have decided to go radio silent on the whole issue (don’t want to scare the horses or queer the lobbyists’ pitch). Bottom line: falling sales and lost “consideration.” As documented by a survey of 40,000 car buyers over the last two months by CNW Research [via Automotive News, sub]:
Troubled Assets Relief Program. TARP. And there I was thinking that the point of the fund was to provide “relief” for financial assets. You know; to defend and protect America’s financial institutions. But no. Ever since President Bush allowed technically bankrupt American automakers to raid the fund, the definition of the word “assets” has been… flexible. And now, it includes auto suppliers. Of course, in Bailout Nation, where the Chief Executive must form a 25-plus-member, multi-million dollar (hey, these ARE lawyers) Presidential Task Force on Automobiles to make a decision, you need a whole new level of bureaucracy to bail out auto suppliers. The AP reports.
The Detroit Free Press rightly points out that ChryCo execs are headed straight for the AIG bonus backlash.
Rep. John Dingell warned Chrysler Wednesday against paying more than $20 million in retention bonuses, and called for a 95% tax on all bonuses paid by companies receiving any money through the Troubled Asset Relief Program…
“While I recognize these are different from the AIG bonuses, it is still dumb for them to pay out these bonuses at this time,” said Dingell, a Dearborn Democrat. “Chrysler should think long and hard about the optics of executive bonuses, especially at a time when UAW workers and retirees are making remarkable concessions.”
Chrysler’s Robert “Fed Cheddar” Nardelli knows his automaker needs $5B, but what about that other once-lucrative side business turned new economy shakedown, Chrysler Financial? Having copped $1.5B back in January, ChryFi’s been slamming record incentives ever since, and now the buzz is wearing off. Which has Nardelli sounding decidedly thuggish. “We have gone back to Treasury and said ‘we need to re-up that amount,’” he tells Bloomberg. “We saw the evidence of how that works.” For real, dawg? What about the fact that sales are down 50 percent since ChryFi took its last tasty hit of government cheese? Fuhgeddaboutit. See, if you look at Chrysler’s retail sales and compare them to declines in the broader market while getting high off your own supply, things don’t look so bad for the Pentastar Posse. Reportedly. The irony is that if Nardelli really was hustling hard drugs on the street corner, well, he’d be selling something.
Yes, I’m going to open this can of worms. Detroit News columnist Daniel Howes did so this morning—although his thoughts on Bonusgate somehow didn’t make it to the paper’s homepage. Howes’ main argument: how can the Obama administration claim that they had to pay $165M worth of executive bonuses because they were legally obliged to do so—when they’re happy to force Chrysler and GM to renegotiate legal contracts with the unions and bondholders as a precondition for double dipping at the bailout buffet? And you know what? He’s right, even if he somehow forgets the seven million [taxpayer] dollars ChrCyo and The General are spending for lobbying our legislators and, by extension, commander-in-chief.
Perpetuating this double standard — one set of rules for troubled Wall Street firms with a demonstrable record of fat campaign contributions and another for automakers with union labor and little clout in Washington — is arbitrary, indefensible and deserves the backlash buffeting Congress and the Obama administration.
The Financial Times carries the crazy news that General Motors is planning to celebrate its next bailout check by throwing more money–-your money—on the hood of its moribund metal. I repeat, GM wants to increase sales and reduce profits by using your taxes to reduce its prices to sell its cars that it wouldn’t be making–-couldn’t be making—if GM didn’t get some $30 billion of your tax money. This would [almost] explain GM’s otherwise inexplicable decision to increase production during the second quarter by 45 percent: they really do believe they’re going to sell a shit load of cars. Which they might if they slash, say, 50 percent off sticker. Hell, why not? It’s not their money. As TTAC, commenter lw points out, “the new owners are not interested in profits.” Wait! Don’t tell me! GM announces it’s “Thank You America” sale.
The New York Times has an interesting piece today comparing automotive rescue plans to earlier government intervention in the railroads. As apt a comparison as it might be, the piece ultimately advocates exploring an option for the auto rescue based on Conrail, the government-owned rail holding company created in 1976. If the American Leyland model worked for trains it might just work for autos, right? “The ideological debate already in progress,” says Wharton prof Peter Cappelli, “is whether government should actually direct the auto companies, stepping into management, or passively give them more loans, and then get out of the way.” Hows that for a choice?
The Freep reports that Obama’s Car Czarlet, Steve Rattner, is steering his Presidential Task Force On Autos away from earlier considerations of bankruptcy for GM. “Bankruptcy is not our goal,” Rattner tells the Freep after a week of Kool-Aid sampling in Detroit. “I’ve been in and around bankruptcy for 26 years as part of my private-sector work. It is never a good outcome for any company, and it’s never a first choice.” And by turning away from bankruptcy restructuring, the PTFOA has eliminated the only real possibility for comprehensive, radical changes to Detroit’s business model. The result? Don’t expect a single major turnaround effort to tackle Detroit’s unsustainable posture.
Chrysler’s Chief Financial Officer ended last week with an admission that a $5B “loan” from Uncle Sam may not get it through the summer. The AP [via The Detroit News] tells the tale.
Even if Chrysler LLC gets additional government loans, it could face another cash shortage in July when revenue dries up as the company shuts down its factories for two weeks to change from one model year to the next, its chief financial officer said…
Kolka wouldn’t say what would happen if the company doesn’t get further government aid, saying only that he’s not planning to run out of money…
“Following that, the next critical low point in cash is July shutdown,” he said Friday.
As TTAC commentator FredMan points out, Chrysler [via CNNMoney] spent part of this weekend backpedaling. “The $5 billion will help Chrysler work through the crucial July shutdown period when US auto makers traditionally idle their plants for up to two weeks to retool their factories, a company spokeswoman said.” Help? You’re welcome!
Fox News reports that the Presidential Task Force on Autos has hired bankruptcy lawyer Matthew Feldman of New York law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP. The Mattster will help Obama’s quango “evaluate options” for GM, Chrysler and (one assumes) Ford. According to Matty’s soon-to-be-ex-firm’s website, Feldman “recently represented investors that bid for assets in the chapter 11 cases of Dana Corporation and Performance Transportation Systems.” So, auto industry ambulance chaser it is, then. Feldman isn’t the only C11 specialist hovering overhead—I mean, waiting in the wings. I mean, advising the PTFOA et al. how best to piss away—I mean, “invest” taxpayer money in the self-inflicted Motown Meltdown. I mean . . . no. That’s exactly what I mean. Reuters [via Bertel Schmitt] reminds us that “The U.S. government has also been working with bankruptcy and restructuring lawyers at law firms Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP and Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, as well as turnaround specialists at investment bank Rothschild.”
The Detroit News reports that GM told the Presidential Task Force on Autos (or at least the two guys who went to Detroit on a Volt junket) that the zombie automaker won’t be needing the previously requested $2B federal “advance.” GM requested the money last month to get them to the end of this month—when they’ll need another $16.6B federal “loan.” Oh, and please note that the $16.6B—on top of the $13.4B previously loaned, not including a share of the $25B Department of Energy retooling loans, or the $1B loan to prop-up GMAC—STILL includes the $2B that GM says they don’t need. You know, now. For another couple of weeks. Did I mention GM’s $2.6B request for April? Funny how all these billions get confused in my mind. So, how come the deferral? Bad planning? No, good! “This development reflects the acceleration of GM’s company-wide cost reduction efforts as well as pro-active deferrals of spending previously anticipated in January and February,” the automaker said in a statement. So, they’re cutting they’re way to prosperity. As if.
Recent Comments