quote:It is worth noting that, according to JD Powers, reliability of the Ford and Chevy brands has been increasing, and now ranks higher than Mazda, Subaru, and Mitsubishi... But they still aren't as high as Honda or Toyota.
Technically that isn't true. Ford ranks on par with Honda and Toyota when it comes to defects per however many thousands of vehicles sold. This comes in part from Ford bringing their quality up dramatically from the 90's, and slightly from the number of defects in Honda and Toyota's cars actually rising somewhat, but that's not much of a surprise when you consider the increase in their volume. Consumer reports has them equal, and JD Powers has Cadillac, Chevrolet, Ford, GMC, Mercury, Pontiac and Lincoln as high as or higher than Acura, Audi, BMW, Honda, Nissan, Scion, Volkswagen and Volvo. In addition, Power rated the Chevrolet Malibu the highest-quality midsize sedan. And the Malibu and Ford Fusion scored better than the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry.
Quality for Ford and some of GM's brands just isn't the issue it used to be.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What evidence is there that no one will buy from a bankrupt car dealer?
Also, there's little doubt that at least two of the big three would be able to restructure on Chapter 11, at least more than they'd be able to restructure without entering chapter 11.
And it isn't like there's any choice other than entering bankruptcy, long term, unless a miracle of automobile consumption increases happens and the dealer networks suddenly decide that they'd like to undergo a substantial rebranding to a smaller number of brands, almost certainly involving large number of dealer closings. The automobile manufacturers are geared up to produce too many cars and sell them in too many different ways, and they're contractually prevented from reducing in order to deal with reductions in demand. They will enter bankruptcy, the only question is when.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The study I looked at didn't mention defects, but rather "problems per 100 vehichles after 3 years of ownership." (shrug) It is true- you can see the report here - though it does date back from 2006, and we may be using different standards of measure.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, we're looking at two different things. I'm looking at 2008 vs. 2005 in your report, and I'm also looking at Initial Quality as opposed to Vehicle Dependability. I'll have to go and look at the 2005 vs. 2008 numbers for both to see where things are.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Looks like mixed results, with big gains bringing them about equal to Honda in Initial Quality but still despite more big gains (for Ford) lagging in Dependability, though I'd note that Ford's VDR now is where Honda's was in 2005, and no one was calling Honda's garbage three years ago.
If I get the chance tomorrow I'll go looking for Consumer Reports studies.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm completely with fugu. When your business model is to produce more of an item than anyone could possibly use, I have no idea how you could ever turn a profit. That the business model has lasted this long is something of a miracle.
It is interesting to see Ford ranked on par with some of the German brands. (I loved the 20 year old Audi we had. She was a solid little car.) However, my issue tends to be lifespan. I know when I get a used Honda that I'll get it to couple hundred thousand miles. MSNBC seems to think that 150,000 is the average lifespan. DoT seems to think 200,000 is normal for any new car with proper maintenance.
The problem with saying "Ford's doing it now" is that Toyota and Honda have decades of reputation to build on, and Ford has decades of reputation to work against. That's tricky PR stuff there. Also, anyone buying a used car (and our number will only go up in the recession) need the brands that were reliable ten years ago. Ford's improvements won't matter to me for another decade when their good stuff is down to my price range.
While I agree with Dan (the workers won't just go away so the market can fix itself), it may be too little, too late to save American cars. Though with the Asian car makers doing so much of their manufacturing here, it's possible we could just shift the workers from one brand to another. Same factory, same workforce, different body style on the conveyor belt.
Rather than just throwing money at a problem that could stay wobbley for a decade, I'd rather see the companies get a chance to really change up how they're operating. How often does a chance come to completely restructure come along? With the right attitude, Chapter 11 could be a beautiful thing for Ford.
GM's position is tougher. Everyone in that situation might be better off if the government just helped them sell their assets to other manufacturers and transition the GM employees to new contracts. Yes, that means a pay cut. The up side is that if everyone's getting roughly the same pay cut, the local ecomony should quickly drop to the same proportion. Maybe the government could send economists the help smooth that transition out. As long as the cost of living drops as well, that doesn't have to hurt.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Though with the Asian car makers doing so much of their manufacturing here, it's possible we could just shift the workers from one brand to another. Same factory, same workforce, different body style on the conveyor belt.
If it was the same workforce then there would be the same union...and that is going to be a major sticking point
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:People forget what KoM apparently thinks are voodoo ripple effects, but when you put thousands of people out of work in a single location, local businesses suffer, and we're already suffering here in Michigan worse than anyone else in the nation.
Two points. First, I was objecting to ripple effects from one car company to another. Not from car companies to their suppliers and whatnot.
Second, I live in the Midwest too. But I don't see where that gives me a god-given right to have other people prop up the local economy for my benefit. Suffering, pff. Go to Africa and tell them your economy is suffering. Tell it to the Vietnamese. Or closer to home, how about a bailout for New England, whose industries collapsed seventy years ago and never recovered? The Midwest's economy has been living on borrowed time, and capital, for twenty years. Suck it up and take it like a man.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: If it was the same workforce then there would be the same union...and that is going to be a major sticking point.
Why would the new company have to bring the union on? Couldn't they just hire all the workers without it?
In a perfect world, they'd buy enough of GM to have access to their personnel records, hire the good workers, and cut the dead weight at the same time.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Details on the auto sector bridge loans were released by the White House Friday morning, reports Action Economics. The plan includes include $17.4 billion in TARP funds, with $4 billion of that contingent on a second drawdown of the TARP and the balance given in December and January to GM and Chrysler, which are expected to agree to terms today. The loans can be recalled if the companies are not viable by March 31, 2009.
Limits to executive pay and jet perks will be put in place and warrants will be required in exchange to the government for non-voting stock, which would be senior to other debt outstanding. The government can also block any corporate transactions over $100 million and no new dividends can be declared under the plan, while compliance with Federal fuel efficiency and emissions regulations will be mandated.
Interesting move, it seems that the administration has tied the release of a portion of the auto bailout funds to TARP. This means that Congress must approve the second 350 billion dollar potion of TARP for the automakers to get the full amount (anytime before Obama's inauguration anyways).
TARP was of course intended just to buy up financial assets from the banks. Since then it as seen an expansion to nationalizing the actual banks, buying up credit card debt, and now partially nationalizing automakers.
posted
Not a big deal. The money they're getting here will be enough to get them to Obama's inauguration. The next portion of the TARP funds, if they're approved at all, will be with a lot more strings than the first. And any additional auto funds will be passed in a different manner with the new Congress and under President Obama.
If you think this is crazy though, wait until Obama's first 100 days. It'll make this spending look like child's play if the speculation is even close to being right.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whenever I read reports on vehicle dependability I could just laugh my butt off when the charts reach Land Rover.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. On one hand, I think they should go bankrupt (Chapter 11); the airlines are doing it all the time. THEN we can negotiate loans for them, once they have presented a restructuring plan.
I further think that as a condition of the loans, whatever management asks of labor, the management and executive branch should be willing to more than equal. If they ask for a 20% cut in pay and benefits, then the executive branch should be willing to take a 25% cut in EACH form of compensation.
Typically, when the executive branch appears to take a pay cut, it is really more of a shuffling of money. Taking it out of the right hand pocket and putting it in the left. None of that. It must be real cuts in all forms of compensation, and NO executive or managerial bonuses with out genuine increased performance. Why should we pay them big money to fail?
I'm sure management wants big cuts from labor, but I have not doubt that they are unwilling to make the same cuts to their own pay.
If they ask labor to accept the wages equal to American Toyota and other American-Japanese labor force, then I think they should accept executive compensation equivalent to those in the same Japanese companies. Which I'm under the impression is substantially low than the US companies.
At any rate, I think if the ask for sacrifice, then they should be willing to sacrifice even more themselves. Seems only fair.
quote:once they have presented a restructuring plan.
They're already in the middle of one.
quote:I'm sure management wants big cuts from labor, but I have not doubt that they are unwilling to make the same cuts to their own pay.
If they ask labor to accept the wages equal to American Toyota and other American-Japanese labor force, then I think they should accept executive compensation equivalent to those in the same Japanese companies. Which I'm under the impression is substantially low than the US companies.
Once the VEBA agreement kicks in, and the latest round of contract negotiations that took place before this mess started also kick in, with all benefits taken into account, workers at the Big Three will only make a couple dollars more per hour than the transplant workers when all benefits are taken into account.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: ... At any rate, I think if the ask for sacrifice, then they should be willing to sacrifice even more themselves. Seems only fair.
Buffet has a similar idea and goes even further
quote:The government should insist top executives at Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC invest a significant percentage of their own net worths in the Detroit-based companies, Buffett said, ensuring both executives and taxpayers would share in any profits or losses. ... Buffett said the government should be able to drive a deal like one of the ones he makes when Berkshire buys businesses, because automakers appear on the brink of bankruptcy.
Buffett said he'd tell the auto executives, "'We'll give you more upside (than bankruptcy), but you're going to lose if we lose.'"
Its an interesting idea. After all, they are asking taxpayers to invest in what the market has judged to be one of the worst investment deals ever (GM bond interest rates up to 56%) but they still insist that taxpayers will be repaid.
If thats true, they should be prepared to put their own money on the line right alongside the rest of us to secure a bailout. (And if they don't, thats yet another red flag that this is a really bad idea)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
We need to hook buffett into a machine that makes him immortal, and then hook that machine into the management of our markets, and have his undying body seated upon a throne in an oracular temple that us plebeians can go to when we seek aid from the Great One
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is both eye-opening and depressing to look at our banking crisis from China. It is eye-opening because it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the U.S. and China are becoming two countries, one system.
How so? Easy, in the wake of our massive bank bailout, one can now look at China and America and say: “Well, China has a big-state-owned banking sector, next to a private one, and America now has a big state-owned banking sector next to a private one. China has big state-owned industries, alongside private ones, and once Washington bails out Detroit, America will have a big state-owned industry next to private ones.”
Yes, an exaggeration to be sure, but the truth is the differences are starting to blur. For two decades, a parade of U.S. officials came to China and lectured Beijing on the necessity of privatizing its banks, said Qu Hongbin, the chief economist for China at HSBC. “So, slowly we did that, and now, all of a sudden, we see everybody else nationalizing their banks.”
It’s depressing because China in many ways feels more stable than America today, with a clearer strategy for working through this crisis. And while the two countries are looking more alike, they appear to be on very different historical trajectories. China went crazy in the 1970s, with its Cultural Revolution, and only after the death of Mao and the rise of Deng Xiaoping has it managed to right itself, gradually moving to a market economy.
But while capitalism has saved China, the end of communism seems to have slightly unhinged America. We lost our two biggest ideological competitors — Beijing and Moscow. Everyone needs a competitor. It keeps you disciplined. But once American capitalism no longer had to worry about communism, it seems to have gone crazy. Investment banks and hedge funds were leveraging themselves at crazy levels, paying themselves crazy salaries and, most of all, inventing financial instruments that completely disconnected the ultimate lenders from the original borrowers, and left no one accountable. “The collapse of communism pushed China to the center and [America] to the extreme,” said Ben Simpfendorfer, chief China economist at Royal Bank of Scotland.
A rather apropos column. I rather liked the phrase "two countries, one system."
To be honest, things have gotten a bit odd with Canadians pushing capitalist solutions and Americans pushing socialist solutions. I'm starting to look forward to when things go back to normal.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
"Caterpillar Inc. said it will reduce executive compensation by as much as 50% next year, with smaller cuts for other employees, as the manufacturing giant becomes the latest to cut salaries to cope with slumping demand."
No whining and crying to Congress for a bail-out.
This is what I want to see from the Auto industry as a sign of 'good faith'.
quote:In another sign of how seriously Watanabe and his team are taking the current crisis, reports over the weekend say Toyota may cut board member bonuses to zero for the current financial year, saving a further $11 million. While that seems reasonable, given the circumstances, it’s notable that Japanese execs earned far less than counterparts at Detroit rivals during the good times. Last year, Toyota says it paid its 25 most senior executives a combined $33 million in salary and bonuses. Ford paid its CEO Alan Mulally alone over $20 million in 2007 in salary, bonuses and stock options while GM chief Rick Wagoner pocketed $15.7 million
posted
It always seemed my impression that the Zaibatsu's took corporate health to be a symbiotic relationship between the Board and CEO and the company itself, if the Company does well so does the CEO if the company does poorly then it is the CEO that also does poorly and must rectify it.
IP: Logged |
posted
Absoluetly. Part of the problem is that their is not down side for the executive. If the company tanks, they still get big salaries and bonuses. If the company tanks so badly that they are fired, then they leave with a MASSIVE severance package.
I think while the Auto companies own money to the public, their severance packages should be equal to whatever the wage employees have. In the event of a shutdown, I doubt may wage employees will get more than about 3 months severance. That's what the Exec should get.
Further, is a wage employee can be terminated in such a way as to get no severance package, the same should be applied to the Exec branch. If the screw up badly enough, then they walk away with nothing.
I wage employeed make the equivalent of Japanese (in the USA) workers, then Exec's should accept compensation equivalent to those of USA Japanese execs.
It is time to stop rewarding failure.
On a separate subject, I think Congress should ask for the return of all the bail out money they have given Wall Street until Wall Street accurately and fairly give and accounting of where the money went.
And I certainly don't think we should give them any of the remaining money, until we have a full and fair accounting.
posted
The focus on current executive salary, while important is a bit over-prioritized. After all, they've already made tens of millions of dollars and that wealth isn't really on the line. Sure, they might lose next year's salary, but if you have millions in the bank ... well, "what me worry?"
Thats the beauty of the Buffet proposal, making the CEOs of these firms put their existing wealth on the line and putting their money where their mouth is. Its easy to waste other people's money, its harder to waste your own.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, I agree that taking it one step farther and making the executives liable for the outcome of the company.
That's part of what I was trying to say, that the execs, want all the benefit, but none of the risk. If the company wins, the execs win, if the company loses, the execs win. That doesn't create much incentive for them to win.
Also, a lot of them are only using their current jobs and pay, to create even high paying jobs in the future. They don't care about the company, they care about what precedent working for the company sets, and the precedent determines their future salary. Whether the company tanks of not is irrelevant.
So, much like your propossal, I'm trying to make it VERY VERY relevant to the execs whether the company wins or loses.
If the company fails, then I want the execs to pay for that failure. I want the same thing on Wall Street, if they screw it up, then I want them to pay big time.
While executive pay might not be a huge portion of the overall monetary problem, it is very symbolic. Once again, it is a case of the execs wanting everyone else to yield in one way or another, but not wanting to take any risk themselves. As you are saying and as I am agreeing, I want the risk of failure to be huge for the execs. That's great incentive for them to win.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: The focus on current executive salary, while important is a bit over-prioritized. After all, they've already made tens of millions of dollars and that wealth isn't really on the line. Sure, they might lose next year's salary, but if you have millions in the bank ... well, "what me worry?"
I agree with Mucus on this. I feel like CEO salaries are good talking points with marginal substance regarding the real issue, sorta like John McCain talking about earmarks in reference to balancing the budget when earmarks are a very small part of the problem.
CEO salaries definitely need to be scaled back, and perhaps some innovation is in order for that in particular, but I'm more worried about the effect of an 800 billion stimulus package on the economy.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: In what sense?
You're worried that it will have no effect, or you're worried about spending that much money?
I wonder how much of a net effect it will actually have. Will folks act like banks and just sit on the money because things have gotten worse in the meantime? Or will 800 billion dollars suddenly circulating in the economy really provide the pulse they are hoping it will?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I've read, much of the money can't help but stimulate at least something.
For example, I've read some specific projects, road projects, that are all ready to go but lack funding. Funding them will create hundreds of thousands of jobs immediately. That money will get circulated.
For the billions that will go into some sort of income tax reduction to produce immediate benefits, it's hard to say. The personal savings rate of Americans HAS increased recently, for the first time in a long time, but not so much that a large portion of that additional money won't find its way back into the economy.
Only a portion of that money is going to be extra money given to the masses, whereas the rest of it will be used to create new jobs, and someone who just got a job isn't going to put every dime in the bank. They'll go out to eat, and restaurants will put more labor on, and those people will buy more stuff, etc etc. And the long term stuff will make sure that the fire that's started doesn't go out in a year or two, but keeps the economy growing for a long time.
I have no idea how dramatic the effect will be, but I can't imagine it doesn't have any effect, or even a large effect.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously, the stimulus package will have some effect. I think BlackBlade was more referring to the net effect versus other alternatives. (e.g. Sure, the stimulus package will help the economy, but how cost effective is it?) I would add that there is also the question of whether this is the wisest course of action long term (e.g. This package may work for now, but will this stimulus package simply end up hampering future generations more than it was worth as they are forced to pay for it?)
There are all sorts of secondary effect questions as well. For example: a) How efficiently can a stimulus package of this size be managed and how much will be lost to waste? We've already seen that the previous bailout cost 100 billion in pork right at the beginning to the senate and that oversight over the package has been extremely disappointing. There are bound to be scandals when this is all said and done. Some of this can be blamed on Bush, yes, but I think much of this is also simple human nature. b) How easy will it be to scale back spending down the road? Much of the problem getting to this point was easy access to credit and now we're exacerbating the problem. How easy will that be to correct?
These aren't simple questions to answer and I think that there is some validity to the point that a focus on visible problems like executive compensation or corporate aircraft sometimes overshadows these questions.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
I'm not as worried about long term growth, because I think Obama at least, if no one else, is seriously eyeing some of that moeny for long term goals (renewable energy if nothing else). And I would think that ripple effects will create a lot more in the long term.
But I seriously worry about some of that too. I expect at some point we'll elect a supposedly REAL conservative to come in and slash the budget like crazy after Obama is done. But then I don't expect, or at least hope, that this spending spree won't last much longer. After awhile the necessity to spend needs to give way to the necessity to pay off debts.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The Volt by the way is exactly the car that everyone has been telling them to build for a decade or more, and even the Asian automakers refuse to do it.
For the record, it turns out that this is actually untrue. It appears that the first plug-in hybrid in the world has already hit the market from a Chinese company, BYD.
Interestingly enough, Warren Buffet has a 9.9% stake in BYD indicating at least a certain level of confidence in the future of the firm.
quote: The questionable quality of Chinese cars has been the butt of many jokes, but it looks as though BYD Auto of Shenzhen, China, might be having the last laugh.
On Monday, BYD Auto began selling the first mass-produced plug-in hybrid car in the world.
Unlike conventional gas-electric hybrids, the F3DM can be charged from a wall outlet. It has a range of about 60 miles on a full battery charge. Its lithium-ion batteries can be fully recharged in as little as seven hours, said BYD, which stands for Build Your Dreams. And the batteries can be 50 percent recharged at a special station in 10 minutes.
The car also has a 1-liter gas engine, which, according to media reports (Treehugger and Autoblog Green), recharges the batteries to extend the range.
For those of you keeping score, BYD Auto has beaten General Motors and Toyota in bringing a plug-in hybrid to market. The Chevrolet Volt goes on sale at the end of 2010. Toyota is planning a plug-in hybrid, also for 2010.
...
According to The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Wang told reporters that the company plans to sell 350,000 total vehicles in 2009, which is nearly twice the number sold in 2008. The company plans to introduce four new vehicles next year, including an electric car.
In September, Warren Buffett bought 9.9 percent of the firm, which may signal BYD’s entrance into the United States market in the near future.
posted
The Volt still goes a step further than either the plug in Prius or the F3DM. In the case of both Asian cars, they are traditional hybrids with big battery packs that allow you to charge them from a wall outlet and then drive, but when the batteries die, the engine kicks in both to power the battery AND to actually move the car.
The Volt is fully electric. It's an electric car. The engine is just there to charge the battery and at no time actually moves the car.
Toyota until recently downplayed the idea, then announced a half hearted effort with the Prius plug-in, which is equivilant to what almost every other major car company is making. It's an established car with lots of battery packs thrown onto it, and even they are extremely hesitant to use LIONs. Honda has been badmouthing the idea and the technology for months now.
As for BYD? Who knows? They've been making cars for five years. Considering the complexity of the technological shift being attempted, and the total lack of coverage of the process for their R&D from start to finish, I'm not really holding my breath on their car being a smashing success. I hope that it is. I hope that it is for lots of reasons. But it wouldn't surprise me if it was met with a lot of problems.
So, "for the record," I'm still right. That BYD car might be the first PHEV, but the Volt will still be the first EREV. And there are tons of PHEVs planned from different companies that will all be coming out around 2010. Many of them are American.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be honest, I think you're splitting hairs a bit. From a consumer POV, the car moves powered by electricity for the first n kilometers, then the engine kicks in. Whether the engine drives the car directly then or whether it charges the battery first seems to be a technicality.
Its certainly not a distinction that "everyone has been telling them to build for a decade or more." I suspect far more people across the world are currently more interested in a PHEV than a EREV, especially at the price difference between the two currently.
In any case, the BYD car is available now and is being sold now. That counts for a lot, after all, who knows if GM will even exist two years from now and who knows if the Volt will end up being vapourware. A bird in hand and all that.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:In any case, the BYD car is available now and is being sold now. That counts for a lot, after all, who knows if GM will even exist two years from now and who knows if the Volt will end up being vapourware. A bird in hand and all that.
That's true. On the other hand, who knows if that BYD car will still be around in a couple years. A new untried technology using a new untried battery configuration on a massive scale with a scant record behind it. I have a feeling it'll sell well enough in China, though maybe their timing wasn't the best given the recent plunge in oil prices. But Americans are leery about buying cars from a company that's been around for 100 years. I have a feeling they'll be even more leery about buying from a company that's been around less than a decade, especially given the general public sentiment towards Chinese made products. They've had a bad couple of PR years recently.
Either way, we're still a couple years away from any sort of battery powered car being on the market in the US, be it from China, Japan, or the United States (or anywhere else).
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: That's true. On the other hand, who knows if that BYD car will still be around in a couple years.
Kind of a cheap shot since BYD is probably selling way more cars than GM did at five years old. Also, Buffet at least suspects that BYD will be around for as long as his investment is in BYD and he certainly expects some growth. AFAIK, he has no money in GM, luckily. In fact, he obviously believes that the prospects for GM are less than that of Goldman Sachs, GE, and even the makers of Kraft Dinner. So far, it seems that the stock market has a pretty similar view (albeit, much more negative across the board than Buffet's view)
quote: But Americans are leery about ...
Never really said anything about Americans on BYD. Bah. I suspect that some Americans will cling to American cars long after they give up clinging to their guns and religion
I'm talking on a more global scale, after all, replacing 1000 cars in China is just as important for the environment as replacing 1000 American cars, maybe even more so given the scale of the environmental problems there.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Under the current plan, the US government would cancel most or all of its existing debt in the company and invest in a “new” GM that could emerge from bankruptcy in the autumn, said a person close to the matter.
GM would receive tens of billions of dollars in new government money, probably in stages, to prop up its business at a time when car sales are threatening to be lower than the 10m annual rate at which GM says it can break even.
The person said that the government may keep a slice of debt in the “old” GM assets that are wound down in bankruptcy to retain leverage over the process.
GM, the largest US carmaker, is likely to file for bankruptcy protection even if 100 per cent of bondholders agree to a debt swap proposed by the company and the government, said people close to the company. An agreement looked unlikely on Friday, after a bondholder committee said it would reject the offer.
Huh. Its almost a footnote, but it seems that the majority of the GM bailout which was marketed as an "investment" is about to disappear. Our governments won't be getting much back at all (and in fact will need to put more money in).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't like the sound of that. Why on Earth would it require that much government funding if their debt is reduced to near zero? I know they'd need cash for operating expenses, but they still have an influx of money from the cars they are selling, smaller though the number may be.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
