The Senate’s Congressional Oversight Panel, which has been charged with monitoring the TARP program, has released its final report [PDF] before it disbands next month. Given TARP’s importance in this country’s historical sweep, we’d recommend that everyone at least glance through the document. But, if nothing else, TTAC’s readers should at least check out the section on the Auto Bailout, which not only summarizes the government’s actions, but also points out problems that arose during the bailout as well as problems that could still emerge as a result of the bailout. The “Lessons Learned” portion of the Auto Bailout section is of special interest, and so we are republishing it below the fold. For all of the hot air and ink that’s been spilled over the bailout, the reality is that it was simultaneously a success and a failure. As a purely short-term, cost-no-object effort, it very clearly prevented what could have been a messy collapse in the auto sector. But because the true costs and long-term effects of the bailout aren’t yet known, it’s still impossible to say if that short-term rescue was worth the costs or will even prevent another industry meltdown in the future. (Read More…)

According to Steve Rattner, Chrysler was such a sick puppy in the immediate pre-bailout period that it would have only generated about $1b had it been liquidated in bankruptcy. Thanks to around $14b in government assistance, however, Chrysler is now worth a whopping $4.8b according to a Reuters analysis of its filings. But wait, you say, how does Chrysler have a valuation if it hasn’t yet launched an IPO?

Chrysler arrived at the valuation to set pay for its top executives, including Marchionne. Senior executives are paid partly through so-called deferred phantom shares, which will convert to shares in the company at a later date.

In June 2009, each share was worth $1.66, according to the filing. By the end of 2010, the value of each share was $7.95.

(Read More…)

The Detroit News reports that top White House economic adviser Austan Goolsby indicated today that the government would be exiting its equity position in GM in the short term. The DetN’s David Shepardson quotes Goolsby as saying

The writing is clearly on the wall that the government is getting out of the GM position. The government never wanted to be in the business of being majority shareholder of GM. It was only to prevent a wider spillover, negative event on the economy. So we’re trying to get out of that. We’re not trying to be Warren Buffet and figure out what the market is doing

And he’s not kidding: GM’s stock just closed at its lowest level since the IPO, after GM’s Q4 results came in below analyst expectations and the overall market experienced turmoil due to Middle East unrest.

(Read More…)

Analysts are reporting that GM could announce full-year 2010 profits of over $5b tomorrow, although Q4 profits may have dipped to $1.06b. That would make its full-year results the best since a $6b profit in 1999, but Q4 results could be the second-worst since emerging from bankruptcy. Why the slowdown? Analysts give Bloomberg a number of possible explanations, including

• GM’s spending on cars including the Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid and future products may lead to higher costs similar to those that restrained profits at Ford and Daimler AG.
• Automakers are paying more for materials such as steel and are struggling to pass the costs to consumers amid a “somewhat weak” economy
• Restructuring unprofitable European operations

Of all these dynamics, however, CEO Dan Akerson’s rush to revamp GM’s lineup and expand the applications of the Volt’s drivetrain could end up driving the most cost. Though GM is making a healthy profit again (and not paying taxes on it), an overly-ambitious speed-up in product cadence could combine with rising costs to slow The General back down (as they have already done to some extent at Ford). In any case, we will certainly have a better picture of GM’s financial performance tomorrow, when the firm’s results are announced.

Automotive News [sub] reports:

Sixty-four dealerships that were terminated during Chrysler’s 2009 bankruptcy reorganization sued the U.S. Treasury Department today, seeking at least $130 million.

The suit, filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims here, alleges the government violated the Constitution by taking the stores’ franchises and their state legal rights without adequate compensation.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs say that more dealers could come on board, as the 64 suing dealers represent only eight percent of Chrysler’s cull. Neither Treasury nor Chrysler (which is not named in the suit) have commented. The suit, which can be read in its entirety in PDF format here, claims violation of Fifth Amendment rights, arguing that:

[the dealer cull] served the public purpose of promoting stability to the financial system of the United States… This is a loss that should not, however, be borne by a few individual dealers but, by reason of its broad and salutary public purpose, must in fairness and justice be borne by the public as a whole.

Bloomberg reports

GM plans to pay bonuses to most managers equal to 15 percent to 20 percent of their annual salary and as high as 50 percent to less than 1 percent of its 26,000 U.S. salaried employees, said one of the people, who asked not to be named revealing internal plans. Bonuses for Chrysler’s 10,755 salaried workers will average about $10,000, with a small group getting as much as half of their salary, one of the people said.

And with GM and Chrysler heading into contract negotiations with the UAW, this is not going to be winning the manufacturers many friends among the union.

“The union is going to be very angry about this,” Gary Chaison, a professor of industrial relations at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts, said in an interview yesterday. “If these kinds of bonuses are paid to salaried workers, then the union’s demands will increase, knowing management can’t claim an inability to pay.”

But wait, isn’t GM giving hourly workers the biggest bonuses in company history? What’s going on here?

(Read More…)

CEO Sergio Marchionne certainly suggested as much in a speech at the NADA convention over the weekend, in which he said

Who knows? In the next two or three years, we could be looking at one entity. It could be based here

From the perspective of the American taxpayer, this would certainly be the favorable outcome. After all, Fiat didn’t put a single Euro into the restructured Chrysler, and national bailouts don’t usually result in the expatriation of the bailed-out firm. But the US Treasury department isn’t the only master Fiat has to serve, and Marchionne’s suggestion that the Fiat-Chrysler alliance has touched off something of a “firestorm.” The Financial Times reports that

Pierluigi Bersani, leader of the [Italian] opposition Democratic party, demanding an explanation from Mr Marchionne said it was unacceptable for “Turin and the country to become a suburb of Detroit”.

Industry Minister Paolo Romani adds [via the Montreal Gazette]

The head of the carmaker must remain in Turin

And with Italian backlash against a possible Detroit headquartering of the Fiat-Chrysler alliance building, Marchionne is backpedaling furiously.
(Read More…)

You want the good news or the bad news first? OK, the good news is that Fiat/Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne told attendees at NADA’s annual convention that Fiat and Chrysler “may” be merged into a single company, possibly headquartered in the US. Which means the federal bailout may not have simply been a transfer of the firm to Italian ownership, news that many taxpayers likely find at least a little bit comforting. Now, about that bad news… while saying that he planned to “work his [rear end] off” to pay back taxpayers, Marchionne let slip a bit of the resentment he clearly feels at government ownership of Chrysler, saying

I am paying shyster rates. We had no choice… I am going to pay the shyster loans.

Jalopnik does a good job of covering the roots and associations of Marchionne’s choice of words (and clearly he could have chosen better), but we’re mostly irked by the victim complex embraced by executives of the bailed-out automakers, especially in Marchionne’s case. The Fiat CEO was given 15 percent in Chrysler for no cash down, and will be able to take control of the automaker for a tiny fraction of its actual value. All this was possible only because the government guided Chrysler through bankruptcy, crammed down its bondholders, demanded union concessions and injected tens of billions into the company… and now Marchionne wants to employ slurs to complain about the fact that some of that money must be paid back?

These comments cloak Marchionne in the gravitas and respectability of someone who believes he should be able to receive unemployment benefits without actually looking for a job. Especially considering that only yesterday Marchionne was slamming GM for turning down DOE loans, saying

I have neither the arrogance nor the cash to show any disdain toward the DOE process. It would be wiser to Chrysler to continue to try to secure that funding.

Given that public support for the bailout is still quite low, Marchionne’s comments could hardly have been more poorly chosen.

GM has just dropped a press release [in .docx format here] announcing that it has withdrawn its request for $14.4b in low-cost government retooling loans through the Department of Energy’s “Section 136” or ATVM loan program. Says CFO Chris Liddell

This decision is based on our confidence in GM’s overall progress and strong, global business performance. Withdrawing our DOE loan application is consistent with our goal to carry minimal debt on our balance sheet. Our forgoing government loans will not slow our aggressive plans to bring more new vehicles and technologies to the market as quickly as we can. We will continue to make the necessary investments to assert our industry leadership in technology and fuel economy.

Color us stunned. The “136” loan program was nearly used as a slush fund to bail out GM and Chrysler before President Bush ruled that the automakers qualified for TARP relief. Shortly after the bailout, GM said that the loan program was “one of the sources of liquidity GM is factoring into its plans in order to meet its capital requirements in the future.” More recently, it seemed that the loan program was on hold while GM and Chrysler were qualifying for loan requests that would have drained the program of funds. Now, with GM’s request dropped from the queue, there could be as much as $10b left for other manufacturers. Plus, by turning down cheap government loans, GM has made its first major (voluntary) step towards beating back the Government Motors moniker. Good for them.

One of the more dangerous conflicts embedded in the US auto bailout that was identified in the recent Congressional Oversight Panel report has been a TTAC hobbyhorse for some time, namely the tradeoff between GM’s success and that of its former captive finance arm GMAC (now known as Ally Financial). As we wrote back in May,

if government-owned Ally isn’t interested in underwriting GM’s volume gains with risky loans but also isn’t interested in seeing its auto lending business bought by GM, there’s trouble brewing. After all, that would leave GM with only two options: partnering with another bank, or starting a new captive lender. Either way, a new GM captive lender would likely force Ally into offering more subprime business anyway, or face losing its huge percentage of GM business.

Fast forward the better part of a year, and GM has indeed bought its own in-house subprime lender, leaving the COP to term The General’s lack of interest in taking care of “the Ally Tradeoff” as “disconcerting.” After all, with over 20 percent of GM’s equity and over 70 percent of Ally’s stick, the Government should have been able to work out some kind of deal that gets GM and Ally back on the same page… right? Not so fast, reports the WSJ. Ally turned down a $5b GM offer for its wholesale lending business earlier this year, and now it seems another deal may be in the works. But it has nothing to do with maximizing taxpayer payback, and everything to do with shoring up GM’s floorplanning credit. And it’s not coming from the government, but from GM’s newly-ubiquitous CEO Dan Akerson.

(Read More…)

The Department of Energy’s $25b Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan program was very nearly used as a slush fund to keep GM and Chrysler afloat during the dangerous days leading up to the federal auto bailout. Though President Bush’s decision to use TARP to rescue America’s failing automakers took away the need to tap the so-called “retooling loan” program to fund America’s auto bailout, that decision also contributed to a long delay in the allocation of the ATVM loans. Because the loans require applicants prove “financial viability,” GM and Chrysler’s requests (which account for $17.4b out of the remaining pool of $16.7b in non-allocated loans) have been on hold, and with them, every other automaker still seeking approval for its requests. And now, with no word from the DOE on the loan program since last April, congress is agitating for the DOE to make with the loans already. Senator Diane Feinstein captures the frustration in a letter published by the Detroit News

“On multiple occasions, the department has missed internal deadlines for initial decisions, term negotiations, final decisions and loan closure,” she wrote, saying the department failed to give applicants “a clear timeline.”

But did the DOE miss deadlines and string automakers along out of negligence, or because it had to wait in order to fulfill the loan program’s mission, namely supporting the bailed-out automakers?

(Read More…)

Yesterday’s release of the Congressional Oversight Panel report on the auto bailout pointed out several fundamental problems with the government’s intervention in the auto industry, all of which stem from what the report termed the “mutually exclusive” goals of the Treasury in overseeing its investment in the industry. But that report focused entirely on the post-bailout management decisions by Treasury, ignoring the decisions made during the bailout itself. And though the White House has, in recent months, redefined its goals in bailing out GM and Chrysler to focus on the improved financial performance of the bailed-out automakers, this is clearly a recent recalibration of its political message. As I pointed out in my latest New York Time Op-Ed,

what Mr. Obama called his “one goal” — having Detroit “lead the world in building the next generation of clean cars” — is nowhere near being achieved.

And, as it turns out, the Administration’s actions in the bailout will inevitably come up well short of that goal in at least one important respect.
(Read More…)

The Congressional Oversight Panel, which oversees the TARP program on behalf of the legislative branch, has released an update on the auto bailout [full PDF here] acknowledging the successes of the government intervention, while airing a number of important concerns. As has been typical of mainstream media coverage of the auto bailout, the good news has already been well-reported. The report, for example, notes that the bailout brought GM and Chrysler’s capacity utilization up, labor costs down, and allowed them to “[start] to reverse” their decades-long declines in market share. Furthermore, estimated government losses on the bailout have been halved, from $40b to $19b. The report’s summary concludes

While it remains too early to tell whether Treasury‟s intervention in and reshaping of the U.S. automotive industry will prove to be a success, there can be no question that the government‟s ambitious actions have had a major impact and appear to be on a promising course. Even so, the companies that received automotive bailout funds continue to face uncertain futures, taxpayers remain at financial risk, concerns remain about the transparency and accountability of Treasury‟s efforts, and moral hazard lingers as a long-run threat to the automotive industry and the broader economy.

Which brings us to the concerns that have received considerably less media attention…

(Read More…)

John McElroy recently quit the Automotive Press Association because they invited Steven Rattner, former head of the government’s auto industry task force, to speak. He warned, “If you want to read [his] book, DON’T BUY IT. Get it from your local library, because Steven Rattner is a rat who doesn’t deserve a dime of anyone’s money.” What he didn’t say: don’t read the book. And with good reason: it’s well-written, insightful, and definitely worth reading.

(Read More…)

Chrysler’s bailout-era dealer cull has ended up being something of a nightmare, with a number of dealers successfully fighting for reinstatement as federal investigators look into possible criminal wrongdoing. And whereas GM has basically rolled back much of its dealer cull, Chrysler has consistently used arbitrary calculi for closing dealers and has resisted giving dealers the opportunity to reclaim their franchises. Now, the dealers that have won reinstatement in congressionally-mandated arbitration hearings are facing a new threat: relocation. Automotive News [sub] reports that Chrysler’s method of dealing with reinstated dealers is to force them to relocate wherever Chrysler wants them to go. Chrysler has filed a request in a Michigan District Court, asking for the ability to relocate some 20 dealers in 6 Midwestern states, a move it says it must undertake in order to protect its non-culled dealers. But, having picked the winners and losers among its dealers only to see some of them reinstated, shouldn’t these reinstated dealers be afforded the same rights as the dealers who weren’t culled in the first place?

(Read More…)