Hmmm. One wonders about the veracity of LaNeve’s excuse for allowing “nearly” 60 dealers to avoid termination. Who created the “incorrect or inaccurately reported dealership financial data” upon which their second lease on life was—allegedly—based? Given that dealers fighting for their survival wouldn’t under-report their financial data, common sense suggestd GM’s auditors are responsible for the, dare I say it, mistake. So, how did GM screw it up for “nearly” 60 dealers? And surely that boner throws doubt on the rest of the dealer appraisals (view criteria here). Fuel for the fire for H.R. 2743. In short, GM is still run by the Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight. Make the jump for official dealer com from Dr. Death. [Thanks to you-know-who-you-are for the email.]

Read More >

Robert — If dealers do not sign the wind-down agreements, their sales and service agreement will not be renewed in 2010, and they will not be eligible for GM assistance. However, to date, we have 99% completion of these agreements.

–John McDonald
GM Spokesman
Detroit

However?
Read More >

GM dealer Jack Fitzgerald is not happy about losing some of his franchises. Unlike GM CEO Fritz Henderson, Fitzgerald has set forth a graphic-laden argument (PDF viewable online here) defending his position on the dealer cull. Here’s why Jack reckons we need H.R. 2743, mandating car dealer-protection:

As Congress and the Administration consider various proposals to restore the rights of affected auto dealers, I want to share with you the context for making such decisions. We believe that there was a fundamentally flawed analysis of the domestic auto industry that led to a misguided decision to close numerous dealerships and which will add to the nation’s unemployment misery.

Right now, Congress has before it a legislative proposal that would restore dealers’ economic rights and permit a case-by-case assessment of our dealerships. It is the best way to correct what has occurred and to put our industry on a path to growth and employment opportunities instead of the path of cannibalism, economic dislocation, and a downward spiral for the U.S. auto industry as a whole as consumers react to being abused.

Read More >

Why would GM’s VP of sales and marketing for North America expect his company’s [remaining] dealers to contact their elected representatives to support Government Motors’ dealer cull? Times two when you consider that GM is planning on making another round of dealer cuts in the future. “Hey. It’s Mark LaNeve. Thanks for lobbying for our downsizing. Oh, by the way, you’re next.” No, I’m not making this up. Here’s the e-mail, complete with fill-in-the-blanks phone script. [Thanks to you-know-who-you-are.]

Read More >

According to Automotive News [sub], GM plans to shed an additional 520 dealers through “attrition” by the end of 2010. AN does the math: 1380 (by corporate fiat, so to speak) + 520 (attrition) + 500 (HUMMER, Saab and Saturn’s disappeared) = 2400 dead franchises trading. Given that many stores have overlapping franchises, I’m not sure how many dealers GM will have at the end of the federally-sponsored day. In any case, GM is on the ropes on the coasts and tanking in Texas. The bankrupt automaker needs a wide spread of smaller dealers to cover their last redoubt (the heartland). Still, one wonders what the ideal frnachise network size should be, and this process of attrition. More specifically, what will GM’s market share be and what’s GMAC’s role in this “inadvertent” downsizing? Is the lender—sorry, “bank”—continuing to make life difficult for GM stores? In other words, are Government Motors’ dealers fading as GM’s market share continues to tumble or will they be pushed? Or both? Oh, and AN reports that GM dealers are having something of a morale problem. Ya think?

The Cash for Clunkers (C4C) program is on its way to Senate approval, as your elected representatives have attached the bill to the $106 billion military spending bill. As the Detroit News reports, the C4C rider sallies forth into legislative battle in the same form as the House version: “Under the program, owners of cars rated at 18 mpg or less in combined highway and city mileage could turn them in for a cash voucher. Buying a new car rated at least 4 mpg higher would earn a $3,500 voucher; a 10 mpg improvement would earn a $4,500 voucher. Pickups would be eligible as long as the new vehicle has a mileage rating of at least 18 mpg and is at least 2 mpg higher than the old vehicle. A new truck rated at least 5 mpg higher than the turned-in vehicle would earn a $4,500 voucher.” One problem: the feds are not planning (i.e., budgeting) for success . . .

Read More >

GM LETTERHEAD

June __, 2009

VIA Federal Express

[DEALER ENTITY CORPORATE NAME] 

[DEALER ADDRESS] 

To All GM Dealers in the US Who Received a Participation Agreement:

First and foremost, thank you for your continued support and efforts on GM’s behalf in these difficult times.  As we indicated when we sent you the June 1, 2009 letter agreement (the “Participation Agreement”), GM wants your dealership to be part of GM’s future and our whole focus is to try to improve, together, the GM dealer network.  We are gratified that, through Monday, June 8, we have received ______ signed Participation Agreements, indicating broad dealer support of our objectives for the dealer network.  

We have, however, received thoughtful and insightful questions and comments from individual dealers, the NADA and the National Dealer Council (the “NDC”) regarding the Participation Agreement. In response, we have had discussions with the NADA and the NDC. As a result of those discussions, we are writing to provide clarity on several points addressed in the Participation Agreement, as well as to amend certain terms and conditions of the Participation Agreement. Again, our whole focus here is to work with GM dealers to insure that both GM and the dealer body are best positioned to compete in this challenging environment and more importantly in the future.

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.”

Not “a” Saturn. “The” Saturn car company. Yes, that’s right: ladies and gentlemen, Saturn has just left GM’s building. Bloomberg reports that the feel good GM division that had once seemingly overcome GM-itis, only to be sucked in by the Borg of GM’s divisional infighting, has finally achieved independence. The Penske Automotive Group has offered a bid in the low nine’s ($100 to $200 million) for a company that has gone through well over ten billion dollars and not a penny of profit. Was it all GM’s fault? Is the Saturn “no haggle”-friendly dealer formula still a winner in today’s heavily discounted world? There’s no telling. But there is a twist. Apparently the cars that may be used for this “different kind of company” will be Renault based and built . . . in South Korea. Who wants to bet that the PRC will also be in Saturn’s orbit within the next few years? Any takers?

Chrysler Co-Prez Jim Press and GM CEO Fritz Henderson faced congressional opprobrium this afternoon, as our duly elected representatives lamented the fact that the two zombie automakers are pulling the rug from under the pols’ financial backers—I mean, cutting car dealers. Never mind the bollocks; the bailout bonanza just got a big bigger. Detroit News reports that Henderson told the Senate that “GM could have 3,500-3,800 dealers by the end of next year, a reduction of 2,300-2,600 dealers. He said the reductions were painful but unavoidable.” Applying this morning’s pay-off formula (an average of $500,000 per dealer), that raises the price of the federally-sponsored sayonara to $1.1 billion to $1.3 billion. But don’t worry, ’cause Fritz feels their pain and promises this is the last last time GM will downsize.

Read More >

Although Judge Gonzalez has so far given Chrysler-Fiat just about everything it has asked for, approval of the dealer cull still isn’t a done deal. The AP reports that: “U.S. Judge Arthur Gonzalez will hear arguments Thursday on the Auburn Hills, Mich.-based automaker’s motion to eliminate the franchises. Chrysler executives are also expected to testify. The motion was expected to be heard Wednesday.” In parallel actions, the Senate is holding hearing today on the very same issue. Again from the AP : “Lawmakers contend the dealership closings will put thousands of people out of work and offer few savings to GM or Chrysler, which have received billions in federal aid as they attempt to restructure and return to profitability.”

Read More >

Automotive News [sub] reports that GM will force its remaining dealers to sign “participation agreements” requiring them to complete any upgrades GM requires. If they don’t sign on the dotted line by mid-June they face having their franchise agreements “yanked” says GM’s Mark LaNeve. “They get put into the old company and get a fairly quick termination, like the Chrysler dealers did,” LaNeve said. “Their sales and service agreement will be rejected and put into the old company.” GM will send out letters to its dealers tonight, according to AN, which will detail the requirements to remain a part of GM’s happy family.

Read More >

And going, it seems. As many as 450 dealerships with franchise agreements coming due in the next 17 months will be dropped by GM, according to Automotive News [sub]. GM’s Mark LaNeve insists that “less than half” of the 450 number is more accurate, but admits that cuts will be announced when GM files for bankruptcy on Monday. “These are dealers who have very specific issues,” LaNeve tells AN. GM will be using “very similar” criteria for these cuts as the last round, when 1,124 dealers went to the big closeout sale in the sky.

1. Floorplan costs The more dealers you have, the slower the inventory turn. The slower the turn, the longer it takes to repay the debt. The longer it takes to repay the debt, the more money that’s required. By cutting dealers, the manufacturers cut GMAC’s capital requirements, which run into the billions.

2. Inventory Excess inventory ties up capital and increases the burden of the floor plan, due to the longer sales cycle. (Chrysler and GM have far higher days of inventory than Toyota, Honda, BMW, et al. All that metal sitting around wastes a lot of money delaying the conversion of assets to cash). If the automakers have fewer dealers to serve they should be able to produce fewer vehicles.

3. Resale value More dealers means more competition within the brand which means lower transaction prices.

4. Profit at the dealer level One would hope that you end up with better dealers if they can make more money (although that’s debatable).