It’s difficult to compete globally when governments try to pick the winning technologies and the direction changes from administration to administration… the U.S. government is going a bit too far in trying to dictate the powertrain technologies of the future.

BorgWarner CEO Tim Manganello tells Green Car Advisor what he really thinks of the billions of government dollars that have gone into the electric car industry of late. And though the supplier boss clearly has a personal interest in non-EV efficiency solutions (namely dual-clutch transmissions which require some kind of combustion engine), he’s also got a point. Why is the government lavishing unproven (luxury) startups like Tesla and Fisker with hundreds of millions in federal largess, while doing next to nothing to increase the market penetration of proven technologies like clean diesel or natural gas?

At the end of the second quarter of this year, Ford’s overall automotive debt totaled $25.8 billion. Just three months before, its debt level was at $32.6 billion. The debt reduction is all part of CEO Alan Mulally’s plant to earn an investment-grade debt rating by the end of 2011, a move that will lower Ford’s cost of borrowing as well as lowering interest payments. And though Ford’s been making a healthy profit, America’s bailout-free automaker has had more than its fair share of government help to beat the debt. According to the WSJ [sub], Ford’s extensive collection of government loan guarantees has been key to its ability to pay down more expensive debt accumulated during Ford’s 2006 restructuring.

(Read More…)

We want the government out, period. We don’t want to be known as Government Motors.

GM Chairman and CEO Ed Whitacre channels his inner Rick “Bankruptcy is not an option” Wagoner in the New York Times, telling the taxpayers who put him in charge of a bailout-rinsed General Motors to get lost. Sure Ed, we’ll all go NSFW ourselves just as soon as we get our $49.5 billion back. Talk about putting the throat-clearing guttural in chutzpah…

(Read More…)

Several industry commentators have chided the Obama Administration for its recent “Mission Accomplished” tour of the auto industry, arguing that we’re all still a long ways from knowing the bailout’s true effects, and that declaring victory is grotesquely premature. But by now the logic of bailout has so taken hold that the White House knows it need not even prove that the bailout was a success. The point that is made over and over again is that opposition to bailouts can be motivated only by nihilism. On each stop of his recent tour of auto factories, Obama has emphasized that he “refused to walk away” from the auto industry. He did something when no one else would. What tends to escape notice is how quickly the logic of “doing something” can make otherwise smart people stop questioning the actual impact of government intervention. And as two stories today illustrate, that’s a recipe for the worst kinds of waste.

(Read More…)

Noticed that things have been a little slower around here this week? Yes, well, it’s summer and I’m much harder to motivate in the summer. Also, I’ve been working on this op-ed on the Chevy Volt for the New York Times. My conclusion on the Volt?

In the end, making the bailout work — whatever the cost — is the only good reason for buying a Volt. The car is not just an environmental hair shirt (a charge leveled at the Prius early in its existence), it is an act of political self-denial as well.

If G.M. were honest, it would market the car as a personal donation for, and vote of confidence in, the auto bailout. Unfortunately, that’s not the kind of cross-branding that will make the Volt a runaway success.

The Obama administration went here before, when it tried to quantify how much worse things would have been without its stimulus bill. And considering the task force has enjoyed access to GM and Chrysler’s business plans, it’s surprising that this graph (from the Auto Task Force’s just-released Bailout “report” [PDF]) is based on notoriously iffy BLS data. Instead of projecting how many jobs were saved by Detroit’s $86b life raft, couldn’t the White House have cited GM and Chrysler’s pre-bailout Chapter 11 plans? Or were there pre-bailout bankruptcy plans? Either way, the Task Force’s claim that 56k jobs have been created in Automotive since mid-2009 is a bit hard to swallow given the SIGTARP’s recent finding that

Treasury made a series of decisions [regarding the bailout-era dealer cull] that may have substantially contributed to the accelerated shuttering of thousands of small businesses and thereby potentially adding tens of thousands of workers to the already lengthy unemployment rolls.

By narrowing a broad bailout to just the manufacturing side (the report leaves out dealer cuts and the GMAC rescue), the Task Force is simply defining its way to victory. Besides, the problem is that there’s really no way of knowing what might have happened without last year’s landslide of government sugar. For all we know, Fiat might have bought a bankrupt Chrysler with its own money. GM might have shuttered dying brands and cut its bloated capacity of its own volition. Both might even be in mediocre-to-OK shape right now. The only thing we know for sure is that the auto bailout has been a qualified success at best so far. Luckily for the bailout boosters, it will be years before Treasury fully divests from GM and Chrysler, so there will be plenty of other opportunities to declare victory.

It is not at all clear that the greatly accelerated pace of the dealership closings during one of the most severe economic downturns in our nation’s history was either necessary for the sake of the companies’ economic survival or prudent for the sake of the nation’s economic recovery

Whoops! Who could have thought that the biggest political fight of the bailout era was picked over something never really needed to happen. At least, not according to the SIGTARP, the Special Inspector General for TARP, Neil Barovsky. In his latest report on the GM and Chrysler dealer cull [full document in PDF here], Barovsky explodes a lot of the myths surrounding the move to accelerate dealer closings, and even goes so far as to assign real blame… and not to GM or Chrysler either.

(Read More…)

After ending the first quarter of this year with $35.7b in cash and equivalents, GM was in the best position it’s enjoyed in decades. And yet, with an IPO prospectus looming, The General is seeking a $5b line of credit and trotting out EBITDAPRO as its in-house measure of financial success. Both of these tactics are hallmarks of companies that are doing poorly, and GM has already learned how problematic loading up on debt and sliced-and-diced financials can be. So why is The General inviting criticism from outlets like Edmunds Autoobserver, which characterizes GM’s push towards an IPO as the rebirth of old bad habits? The simple answer: “business execution.” In other words, GM may have a lot of cash, but it’s got nearly as many demands on its resources as well… and these cash drains hardly add up to a coherent strategy.

(Read More…)

Bloomberg reports that GM has already pulled off one of the ballsiest IPO moves ever, by asking banks bidding to underwrite its IPO to use fees to subsidize the purchase of GM vehicles by its employees. According to the report, a GM document sent to bidding banks solicited

ideas as to how we can use the IPO to reposition GM and its vehicles within the investment community including your firm’s willingness to reinvest any portion of any underwriting fees into the purchase of GM vehicles for your employees and/or company use.

(Read More…)

Despite having more cash than debt for the first time in decades, GM is going back to Wall Street in search of fresh debt. Over the weekend, The General has been in talks with several banks to secure a $5b revolving line of credit to shore up its liquidity position ahead of an IPO that’s rumored to take place in August. At $5b, GM’s desired line of credit would essentially replace the $5.8b the automaker has repaid to the Treasury, and will help it deal with a number of pressing cash needs to maintain its shaky global empire. But with so many pressing uses for the cash, and political pressure mounting for a rapid IPO, can GM deal with its issues and take on more debt and be worth what the government wants it to be worth? Troublingly, the answers to these questions are not to be found on GM’s balance sheet.

(Read More…)

You take some of my rescued state-owned automaker, and I’ll take some of yours. That seems to be the cunning plan cooked up by presidents Putin and Sarkozy, as the two face the prospect of rescuing struggling firms in the midst of a weak European market. And actually, it seems that the idea was really Putin’s. French-owned automaker Renault is “more than happy” with its 25 percent stake in the moribund Russian automaker AvtoVAZ, reports Bloomberg, but Russia is offering to buy 15 percent of the French firm if France in turn takes on more AvtoVAZ equity. Considering that Reanult paid $1b for 25 percent of a firm that has been kept alive only by government intervention, a closer embrace of VAZ does not seem advisable. Nor, frankly, does any form of “Franco-Russian Leyland” sound like a good idea.

(Read More…)

The WSJ [sub] reports that GM is officially looking outside of its former captive finance arm Ally Financial (formerly GMAC) as it seeks more subprime loan deals to drive sales volume ahead of its IPO. GM execs tell the WSJ that The General could do even better with an in-house finance arm, but that these deals will help. And, according to Experian Automotive’s Melinda Zabritski, GM needs the help because

By not financing [subprime] consumers, they are locking out about 40% of the U.S. population

GM’s restructuring consultants AlixPartners add that loyalty improves for customers who buy using a captive lender. The downsides? Higher default risks, the temptation to overload on incentives, and then there’s one more biggy…
(Read More…)

The Detroit News reports that GM will file paperwork to register its initial public offering as soon as next week, citing anonymous sources. This registration will be our first look at exactly what GM and its masters at the Treasury Department are trying to achieve with the offering. Analysts are predicting that the government will sell only one-third of its 61 percent stake in GM, which would rid it of an absolute majority stake but would preserve its status as the largest GM stakeholder. The Canadian and Ontario governments, the UAW’s VEBA fund and bondholders in Motors Liquidation may sell parts of their stakes as well, but there are still no estimates as to just how much of GM’s equity will be up for grabs in this offering. Or what the market response will be. And with the car market still shaky, Opel demanding more of GM’s cash, IPOs being canceled right and left, and only one profitable quarter under GM’s belt, voices are already starting to wonder if GM isn’t rushing this offering for political reasons.

Ed does things that are bolder and bigger rather than small and timid. All things being equal, Ed would like it bigger versus small. But all things aren’t equal. He needs to get the government the best value for its stake, too.

Former AT&T exec James Kahan tells BusinessWeek what kind of IPO GM’s Chairman would prefer. Unfortunately for “Big Ed,” that’s not up to him. GM’s value must be determined by the market, and due to political pressure on the government to end its ownership of GM and Chrysler, it will have to happen as soon as possible. A fourth-quarter IPO with “about half of the government stake [being sold] to the 20 top institutional investors” is in the cards. So we know the government won’t get out of GM entirely in the IPO… but how much will the market give the Treasury for half of its 61 percent stake?

(Read More…)

UAW members picketed the UAW’s 35th annual convention, in Detroit. The union is highlighting the theme of unity, as dissatisfaction with concessions made over the last several years threatens to tear the union apart. Two-tier wages are the underlying threat to unity, but the union’s ownership of stakes in GM and Chrysler have many wondering whether the UAW can even represent its constituents properly. One longtime UAW activist, Gary Walkowicz of Local 600, is even challenging the UAW’s “prohibitive favorite” Bob King for the union’s presidency having successfully defeated recent Ford concessions at his local. Another activist was briefly detained yesterday for distributing fliers outside of Cobo hall. Detroit’s government-funded comeback was only possible because of UAW concessions, and now the fiestier locals want to roll those concessions back and bring back the “fighting union.” That won’t happen as long as the UAW’s VEBA fund owns such large holdings in GM and Chrysler, but once the IPOs are over and the union has dumped its stock, look for these activists to gain more power within the union.