Looks like GM may have done some creative accounting after all – at least according to Swedish Government and their consulting firm KPMG. As we’ve reported the last couple of days, Saab’s rescue has been hanging by a thread due to questions around the company’s financial situation prior to the start of the financial crisis. Saab needs the EU to approve the Swedish Government’s guarantee of an EIB loan to Koenigsegg group if the deal is going to go through. If Saab, during the summer of 2008 – when the financial crisis started – were not in sound financial condition, the EU cannot, will not, approve Swedish government’s guarantees to the EIB loan, and the loan will not be granted. And reports from di.se yesterday almost laid that possibility to rest, with reports that GM had lost $ 5.100,- on each Saab-car sold during the last 8 years. Now, as commentator dlfcohn and others at ttac, as well as several commentators at di.se have pointed out, creative accounting can be useful in major corporates i.e to avoid taxes in tax-heavy countries. This, apparently (at least according to Swed.gov’t/KPMG) was the case with GM/Saab.
(Read More…)

For Monday, November 23, EU Economy Commissar Günther Verheugen invited all EU Economy Ministers to come to Brussel to attend an Opel summit. GME’s new chief Nick Reilly will also attend, reports Unternehmer.de. The idea behind the meeting is anti-competitive: “The Commission is strictly against any bidding war with subsidies,” Verheugen said. Any government help for GM and Opel will be subject to intensive scrutiny from Brussels. Verheugen doesn’t want to rule out government help, as long as EU rules are not broken.

Don’t read too much into this meeting.
(Read More…)

Swedish business site di.se has done some numbercrunching, and figured out that GM has lost SEK 35,000,- (eq aprox $ 5,100, at the current exchange rate) on each Saab sold the last 8 years. As many of TTAC’s readers have pointed out in various comments, GM never made money on Saab. Truth is; they lost a total of SEK 39 billion (3.9 billion Euros) during their ownership, according to di.se’s analysis . The last 8 years has been heavy; a loss of SEK 32,2 billion, or 35.000,- kronor on each Saab sold. That’s $ 5.100,- on each car. This year alone GM has had to take an SEK 6.2 billion cost on the ailing carmaker, SEK 5.2 of those are amortization of debts.  This is why it’s crucial for Koenigsegg Group that the EU commission rules that Swedish government’s guarantees on Koenigsegg’s loan from the EIB are not subsidies. But since Saab has been on life support for so long, it would be almost impossible to defend Saab as a healthy company, and without the Swedish government’s guarantee, the financial plan from Koenigsegg Group will fail. Maybe they can argue that when it comes to Saab, there are no subsidies, just business as usual.

Saab has not had an easy path to salvation. The Koenigsegg Group has had to provide finances, agree to a price and conditions with GM, get loan from European Investment Bank (EIB),and  coax the Swedish Government into guaranteeing loans. Now there’s one more hurdle left, and it’s the same challenge that scuppered the Opel to Magna deal: The EU.
Reports of recent weeks in the Scandinavian media have told us that the EU is thinking the Saab deal over. And when mighty EU thinks, things take time… So, what are they thinking about? They have to decide whether Swedish Govt’s guarantees to SAAB’s loan in the European Investment Bank should be considered subsidies or not. EU countries are not allowed to subsidize unprofitable companies – and the EU has some questions on SAAB’s and Koenigsegg Groups financial plan, and Saab’s results prior to the reconstruction. So the whole thing might stretch into next year until – or if at all – the deal is closed. Incidentally, questions about the anti-competitive nature of the German government’s support of the Opel to Magna deal killed that sale already. But does GM want Saab back as badly?

(Read More…)

The catalyst for all this was the EU saying you only made the money available to one investor. The board did what they should have done and revisited the issue… It’s been a confusing decision, but I don’t think it was handled badly. The circumstances changed from the time this started. The financial part of the business got better. Conditions have changed.

GM Chairman Ed Whitacre on the decision to keep Opel. Financial? Better? Because EU regulators said so? How anyone can see the Opel situation as a “sign of change” is beyond me. GM never wanted to get rid of Opel, they just didn’t want to pay the $8 bil, er, $3 billion to keep it. Too bad German Economics Minister Rainer Bruederle says it’s actually going to cost a cool $5b to restructure Opel. Which GM will just be cannibalizing with Chevwoos anyway. Is any of this not sounding like Old GM?

When GM’s Fritz Henderson called Magna chief Siegfried Wolf and told him that GM had an irreversible case of seller’s remorse, Wolf’s flabbergasted counter was: “Are you joking?” Fritz told him he’s dead serious. Opel will stay with GM. Now, all Wolf has left for GM is unsolicited advice: Give more freedom to Opel and tread carefully with the brand and the unions. “GM must now smooth things out and win back trust. That requires a lot of sensitivity and tact,” Wolf told the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag (via Reuters).

It doesn’t look like GM will be heeding the advice. New Opel Chairman Bob Lutz and new GM-E chief Nick Reilly are known for the sensitivity and tact of a Sherman tank. Supposedly, both are here on a temporary basis only until new outside managers are found. It could be a long search, if it is a real one at all.

On Monday, Fitz Henderson will come to Germany and try to smooth over things with the workers, Opel’s worker’s council chief Klaus Franz told German media. It will be a tough talk.
(Read More…)

A certain website that concerns itself with facts about automobiles, had opined more than a month ago: “Once matters move to Brussels, they come to a crawl. Whoever wins the German elections has all the time they want to dispose of Opel. If it goes kaput, they can blame the Americans and Brussels.”

The Opel matter finally moved to Brussels. EU competition commissioner Neelie Kroes said, she could set aside her considerable qualms about the GM-Opel-Magna-Sperbank deal, if only all parties involved would send her a simple letter that certifies that the deal had not been reached under political pressure. All parties involved, meaning GM, the Opel Trust that officially owns Opel, and the German government. Scout’s honor. Cross your heart, and swear to … exactly.
(Read More…)

Here’s a surprise: American cars hold their value much better than other major markets, including Japan and Europe. Cost of ownership is the culprit. In the US, owning a car generates relatively little in the way of year-to-year expenses. Registration is usually about $30. Inspections are infrequent and rarely costly. While the repairs required to keep a “beater” on the road can reach four figures, they rarely exceed the value of the vehicle itself. As a result, it’s unusual to see a used vehicle in America (even “heaps”) listed for sale under $1k. Also as a result, the cash-for-clunkers proposals, as envisioned, are a horrible idea.

In an effort to boost sales, the German government has been running a “cash for clunkers” program. The government is offering 2,500 Euros for any eligible old car traded in towards a new car purchase. After some initial cheering, the program has been leaning toward scandal land. The reason for this nexus: gaps.

Gap number one: used car values. Overseas, licensing and stringent test regimes make the cost of auto parts a far more daunting proposition than it is in The Land of the Free. Tax laws favoring company/fleet purchases create [even] dramatic depreciation for mass market models. These factors mean that the market value of a “tradable” used car is much less than it’s “government” trade-in value.

The other gap—and the source of many of the “issues” surrounding the cash-for-clunkers program—lies between a car’s “inflated” trade-in value and the cost of a new car.

At best, the money garnered from the government for a clunker represents about a 25 percent down payment on a new car. That’s at the low end. For a more middle-market car, the clunker check accounts for less than 10 percent of the cleaner, greener machine’s purchase price. On top of that, the sort of person who would be buying a €10K car is the one least likely to get financing to close the “gap”.

The sharp end solution to this gap is simple: People who can afford new cars will buy (from a private owner) a “junker” to trade. The junker’s former owner will take a fee (maybe 1000 Euros) and use the money to buy a non-tradeable old car. Hopefully a better one, but not necessarily.

Despite/because of these economics, it seems that everyone wins (and the old cars get taken out of circulation). In practice, no.

The biggest problem with Germany’s cash-for-clunkers program: it takes something that is normally not very valuable (a German jalopy) and increase its value several-fold by attaching a couple of documents. Throw in the fact that the money “pool” supporting the program is “first come, first served,” and you get fraud on an impressively large scale.

TTAC’s Bertel Schmitt has been connecting the dots between the environmentalists’ and the mob’s green dreams. Apparently some of the trade-ins are doing it the Chicago way (early and often), and aren’t even getting scrapped. This makes a mess of the real purpose of the program (culling clunkers), while doing nothing to increase sales (the spoonful of sugar to make the green stuff go down easier).

It’s a stark warning to Americans contemplating the wisdom of the whole cash-for-clunkers concept. But is the devil in the details? Could CforC be done “properly”?

First, you’d need to make the scrap credit what it is: a simple payment above salvage value to take a heap off the road. Second, you need to make the payment lower (say $1,500 or even $1,000). Third, you need to extend it to ALL eligible vehicles and run it through salvage yards (therefore only one set of books to check).

In effect, the goal would be to get “heap” drivers into a slightly newer, slightly nicer “heap.”

Aside from aesthetics and a marginal pollution reduction, the greatest benefit would be to reduce the total vehicle population on the road. This will eventually help the new car market but not for a few years and not for the reason you’d think.

While new vehicle sales had been running high until last year, the “scrap rate” has held steady at about 12.5 million a year for the last decade. Sales have far exceeded that rate; that is one reason the US has 250 million cars for 200 million licensed drivers.

A targeted cull would aim to increase the scrap rate, to 15 million annually. Make no mistake, doing it right would not be cheap, I reckon $5b dollars a year (3.5 million times $1,500) ought to do it.

Reducing the absolute number of cars would help heal the damage years of “fire sales” have had on used car prices. Getting used car prices back near “normal” would help sales down the road. But would it be worth the cost? In Bailout Nation, cost owns you.

Ever since bailout measures for the auto industry were first mooted, free market detractors whispered “WTO.” Nobody took it seriously. True, according to the World Trade Organization’s rules, direct subsidies are not allowed. But it’s equally important to note that the 153-member quango has never put a single issue to a vote since its birth in 1995. Consensus governance means that as long as nobody complains, and especially, as long as everybody plays the same game, the WTO hangs fire on principle. Auto industry loans? They’re all doing it. Still, there is a line a WTO member mustn’t cross. And America almost crossed it.

Recent amendments to Uncle Sugar’s near-as-dammit trillion dollar economic stimulus package would require US firms to use local steel and other components in state-funded projects. The provision kicked sand in the face of the WTO’s raison d’être: the most favored nation (MFN) rule.

Under the terms of the MFN rule, a WTO member must apply the same conditions on all trade with other WTO members. The provision also applies to trade within and without a given nation. “Imported and locally-produced goods should be treated equally (at least after the foreign goods have entered the market).” To do otherwise constitutes blatant protectionism.

Similar buy local protectionist measures have been adopted or considered in Argentina, China, Indonesia, Ecuador, India, Russia (re: imported used cars) and Vietnam. All seven WTO member nations have landed on a WTO ­surveillance list.

The Guardian writes that the European Union (EU) is pissed with the “buy American” bailout provision. They’ve threatened legal action and retaliatory measures against the US if the Obama administration enshrines this clause in its multibillion-dollar economic stimulus package. Brussels said it could take the US to the World Trade Organization for breaching treaty rules.

The warning came just a day after Joaquín Almunia, EU economic and monetary affairs commissioner, pointed to “clearly protectionist measures” emanating from Washington. The EU ambassador to Washington has expressed similar concerns. A spokesman for Lady Ashton, EU trade commissioner, said: “If the provisions that are finally passed by the US Senate and approved by President Obama infringe the provisions of the GPA [general procurement agreement], to which the US is a signatory, then this is something we will have to consider taking them to the WTO over.”

Compared to previous hints and “concerns,” this amounts to a barrage of warning shots. Amid fears that the US and other countries could trigger a disastrous 1930s-style “Great Depression” trade war through protectionist blocks on trade, the European commission highlighted similar moves in Europe.

A French €10b aid program requires firms to source components solely from France, keep only the French plants open and scrap plans to “de-localize” jobs to elsewhere in the EU. Neelie Kroes, EU competition commissioner, will warn French ministers in talks in Brussels that state aid must not only comply with competition rules but also with EU laws on freedom of movement and capital. “They have to realize that once they start down that protectionist path it’s a descent into chaos,” her aides said.

On Tuesday, U.S. President Barack Obama signaled fear that Buy American provisions—supported by Democrats in steel-producing and economically distressed states—would trigger a trade war at a time when the global economy is in dire straits.

On Wednesday, lawmakers voted to soften the controversial “Buy American” provisions in the proposed U.S. economic stimulus package. The amendment, approved by the Senate, requires the Buy American provisions be “applied in a manner consistent with U.S. obligations under international agreements.” Which is like saying you can burgle a house as long as you don’t break the law.

The bottom line for carmakers: even if America’s avoided a trade war (for now), they can’t win.

If the feds restrict the bailout buffet to The Big 2.8 and domestic production, they run the risk of retaliatory measures from neighbors—and markets—around the globe.

And don’t forget it’s a small world after all. In the run-up to the meltdown, Motown’s automaker practically demanded that its suppliers outsource abroad. By now, keeping the suppliers’ share of the domestics’ business within U.S. borders will be more about spin than compliance. Especially if those suppliers receive their requested $20.5b bailout.

On the other hand, if the feds don’t limit their largess to domestic producers, they run the very real risk of alienating whatever voter and/or union support exists for the pork barrel parade. A billion dollars of TARP money for Brazil? Esqueça-se.

On a practical basis, a truly “fair” bailout would put the domestics at a disadvantage.

Think of it this way: the existing Chrysler loans are equivalent to a current subsidy of $10k per vehicle sold. If, instead, you offered American car buyers $10k off a car, they wouldn’t buy a Chrysler. Clearly, you couldn’t offer the discount certificate just to Chrysler buyers. What kind of country would that be? Welcome to Bailout Nation.

For most in the German auto business, the Cash-for-Clunkers scheme (€2.5K if you scrap your old and buy a new one) is the savior that rescues Deutschland from eternal CO2-related damnation. Not to mention the fact that dealers are reporting long lines in showrooms. The hottest topic: the money to fund the Abwrackprämie (“wrecking award”) will be gone soon. Germany’s elected representatives only allocated €1.5b for the program—enough for 600K cars or one fifth or Germany’s yearly run rate. If that money gets exhausted anytime soon, turning water into wine will be relegated to cheap stunt status. The media ignores this eventuality, and beats the public into a frenzy. Act fast! Im Windhundverfahren (“greyhound method” a.k.a. first-come-first-serve principle)!

(Read More…)