I’m honored that the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) has decided to publish my Op-Ed on GM’s political entanglement in tomorrow’s paper and online. [link here] I trust the piece will bring TTAC some fresh eyeballs. But it’s not the most important aspect of the deal. This website didn’t get to 1 million visits per month through powerful links (thanks, Instapundit), media showboating (shukran, Al-Jazeera) or celebrity journalism (oy, Yates). We did it by providing you, our Best and Brightest, with a steady diet of no-holds-barred automotive news, rants and reviews. The most thrilling bit of the WSJ publication: it will confer legitimacy on our collective mission. Meanwhile and in any case, thanks for your patience with our recent technical troubles. TTAC’s new owner, a Canadian outfit called VerticalScope, is gradually cleaning up some of the, uh, challenged back end software. Our new tech guy, Jonathon Marshall, is a creative, methodical and tenacious bastard. Kinda like us. And you. Cue the “Barney” song. Or better yet, not.

What do you make of this, then: “We do not have a specific target in terms of years, The mere issuance of that blueprint, we believe, would be market disruptive.” So sayeth Ron Bloom, leader of the Presidential Task Force on Automobiles and architect of Uncle Sam’s $100 billion plus GM/Chrysler bailout. Ron was testifying to the Senate Banking Committee re: the Obama administration’s timetable to extricate the government from the domestic automotive industry. But wait! That’s all! The government will divest itself of its 60 percent stake in GM “as soon as is practicable,” Bloom said, but “I certainly by no means would say that I am confident that will occur.” What? EVER?

Sergio Marchionne’s introductory epistle [via the Detroit Free Press] isn’t blessed with the same opportunities for self-congratulation as outgoing Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli’s. Instead, optimism is name of the game. And as Marchionne puts it, this isn’t the first time he’s stepped into “[what many perceived as] a failing, lethargic automaker that produced low-quality cars and was stymied by endless bureaucracies.” But, “through hard work and tough choices, we have remade Fiat into a profitable company that produces some of the most popular, reliable and environmentally friendly cars in the world.” Sergio thinks the same thing can happen at Chrysler. Could it possibly get worse?

Read More >

Readers of a certain age will recognize the latter part of this headline as the “gag” title above a Boston Globe editorial about President Carter—that somehow made it into print. I evoke it here because ex-ChryCo CEO Bob Nardelli’s goodbye letter to his troops involves a different sort of gag response. While you’re invited to read the full text after the jump, here’s the short version: I didn’t fuck up. I mean, he. Nardelli. Bob the Un-Builder. The Home Depot despot. A man who drove not one but two large corporations into the dirt.

Read More >

We’ve given you the heads-up on the federal government’s plans to favor domestic automakers with “stimulus sales.” And so it has come to pass. The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) reports—eight days after the fact—that they’ve ordered 17,205 “fuel efficient vehicles” at a cost of $287 million. Breaking it down: Uncle Sam bought 2,933 Chryslers ($53 million); 7,924 Fords for ($129 million); and 6,348 General Motors vehicles ($105 million). Does it strike anyone as odd that FoMoCo gets the largest contract? Not-so-secret hat tip for NOT taking bailout bucks, while competing against those who have? Or just a reflection of the fact that the Crown Vic rules! Which reminds me: by NOT revealing the exact models ordered, one has to wonder about the depth of the GSA’s commitment to greening-up the fed’s fleet. On this point, the press release is suitably vague, and yet completely revealing . . .

Read More >

An anonymous reader sent us the before and after agreements sent to GM dealers by the post-bankruptcy corporate mothership. Here’s the controversial post-bankruptcy GM dealer agreement before the National Automobile Dealers Association intervention (and media condemnation). And here’s the controversial post-bankruptcy GM dealer agreement after they faced the dealer revolt. The differences between these two documents are not as profound as their similarities. As Casey Raskob (a.k.a. Speedlaw) points out in a comment below, “In short, Dealer agrees to let GM dictate cars purchased, the buildings they are sold in, and this deal is subject to change at the whim of GM. Now GM dealers know how we normal folks feel signing a car lease.” Make the jump to read the analysis provided by our sharp end tipster.

Read More >

Automotive News [sub] reports that the National Auto Dealers Association has given its (unofficial) stamp of approval to GM’s revised dealer agreement. The document, under which GM’s remaining dealers will operate, has not been made public, although we encourage dealers to share their information at our contact form. GM’s previous agreement had drawn heavy criticism at last week’s congressional hearing on GM and Chrysler’s dealer culling plans. “I especially commend GM for its flexibility and its willingness to make substantive clarifications and modifications to address dealer concerns,” NADA Chairman John McEleney said in the statement. “We believe GM has made a very good-faith effort, given the unprecedented circumstances facing GM and the industry.”

Sergio Marchionne’s statement that “we would never walk away” from the Chrysler deal may not be having quite the effect he wanted. After all, the entire justification for the Government cramdown of bondholders and “auction with one bidder” sale to Fiat is that Chrysler will unravel if the the sale isn’t implemented post-haste. In a new filing to Supreme Court (PDF via SCOTUSBLOG), the Indiana funds argue that:

The Debtors (and the United States) have advanced the position throughout this case, including in its papers filed with this Court, that the section 363 Sale at issue here had to close before June 15 or Fiat would exercise its right to withdraw and the entire transaction would collapse. The courts below relied on such arguments and testimony in moving this case forward at an unprecedented pace . . . Whether or not these arguments and testimony were ever true, the Indiana Pensioners respectfully submit that the risk of termination by Fiat if the transaction does not close by June 15 no longer provides a basis for driving the timing of these proceedings.

Automotive News [sub] is reporting that former chairman and CEO of AT&T, Edward Whitacre Jr., has been selected as the chairman of the “New GM.” Whitacre is an industrial engineer by training and previously served on the boards of ExxonMobil and Burlington Northern Santa Fe. Whitacre and interim chairman Kent Kresa will serve on GM’s board along with current members Philip Laskawy, Kathryn Marinello, Errol Davis Jr., E. Neville Isdell and CEO Fritz Henderson. Six other current GM board members will retire by the time GM’s asset sale is approved, four of whom will be replaced by a selection process now underway. Two more directors will be selected by the Canadian government and the UAW VEBA trust. The reconstituted GM board will seat 13 directors.

China’s BAIC is not giving up on its aspirations to buy a foreign brand, if Gasgoo is not mistaken. Beijing Automotive Industry Corp (BAIC), already a joint venture partner of Germany’s Daimler in China, may bid for General Motors’ Saab unit. Saab piqued their interest, as BAIC’s attempt to acquire Opel looks unlikely to succeed—at least for now.
Read More >

Bloomberg asked Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne whether Fiat would pull out of the Chrysler deal (money for nothing and your Fiats for free) if it’s not completed by the automaker’s June 15 deadline: “We would never walk away,” Marchionne said. “Never.”

Adding to the wild uncertainty surrounding Chrysler’s situation is the revalation that Fiat may can the firm’s eponymous brand. In a piece on Chrysler’d ad budget flexibility, Automotive News [sub] paraphrases a “source close to discussions” as saying that “Fiat is already studying whether to keep the Dodge, Jeep and Chrysler brands and might well eliminate the last.” A Chrysler spokeswoman reveals that “although she herself had heard that talk, it’s premature to speculate on whether it will happen.” Chrysler executives themselves considered killing off the Chrysler brand earlier this year but finally opted to keep it.

“After four years of working with multiple potential buyers, General Motors has decided to wind down its medium-duty truck operations,” is the message from bankruptcy court. Topkicked to the curb, so to speak. Because if someone hasn’t bought after four years of wrangling, it’s time to move on. July 31 will mark the end of production for Topkick and Kodiak, which sold a combined 20,000 units last year. Reuters reports that the medium duty truck workers will be reassigned or leave the company through GM’s attrition program.

The hangover following the late night rescue of Opel is causing bigger headaches by the day. Last week, the German magazine Focus wrote that half of the €1.5 billion bridge loan, guaranteed by the German government, could escape “abroad”—€600 million to Spain, €150 million to the UK. Today, Opel denied that report. According to Die Welt, a drive for charitable donations yielded €200 million from Spain. The governments of Belgium, Austria, Poland, and the UK also pledged hitherto unspecified amounts to keep their Opel factories open. Then, German media wrote that GM wouldn’t hand over the Opel patents gratis. Oh no, they would want €6.5 billion in license fees over the next 10 years, €200 million in preferred stock, and €300 million in cold, hard cash for the patents that had been supposedly “sold” by Opel to Delaware. That topic is currently open, but “sources” say it ain’t true. Then there’s the matter of €4 billion for the Opel pension fund. The German government was asked to come up with the money, the answer was: “Nein!” Will it ever end? Nein.

Read More >