backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 118 comment(s) - last by 16nm.. on Dec 9 at 2:09 PM


GM CEO Rick Wagoner, seen on ther far left, is desperately trying to keep his company in business slashing brands and focusing on small cars. However, without a loan GM will likely go out of business by the years end. Chrysler may soon follow. However, 61 percent oppose the bailout in a recent survey, with only 31 percent supporting it.  (Source: AP)
Some familiar brands meet possible demise at the hands of the bad economy

The big U.S. automakers are desperate to stay in business.  While Toyota and Honda have seen similar sharp losses in the form of 30 to 40 percent drops in vehicle sales, the U.S. automakers -- GM, Ford, and Chrysler -- have been hit the hardest.  Their executives realize the need to restructure and have announced large changes, including cutting their own salaries and compensation to $1/year.  GM and Ford are also selling their private jets, a source of much criticism.

All three automakers are looking for money from the government to stay in business. In fact, GM says that it will run out of money before the end of the year, so the bailout money is needed right now.

One major obstacle to a bailout plan passing Congress is public antipathy to an automaker bailout.  A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey indicates 61 percent opposed the bailout, while only 36 percent support it.  CNN Polling Director Keating Holland says one key reason is because people don't believe an automotive bailout would help them.  According to Holland, "Only 15 percent say that they would be immediately affected if the auto companies went bankrupt.  Seven in 10 say that a bailout would be unfair to American taxpayers."

The public opinion marks a shift since November, when over half of those polled supported an auto bailout plan.  In total 70 percent of Republicans oppose the bailout, with 62 percent of independents and 55 percent of Democrats also opposed.  Many of those surveyed cite the automotive CEOs use of private jets as a major reason they changed their mind.

Aides to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are already saying that he doesn't think he has the votes needed to pass a bailout. However, GM and the other two automakers are going their best to convince Congress to save the industry from collapse.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

without a loan...
By Marlin1975 on 12/4/2008 11:10:00 AM , Rating: 5
"without a loan GM will likely go out of business by the years end."

What idiot wrote this? They will not go out of business. They will and should file for bankruptcy, Ch 11. They are able to cut names and kill dealerships with less cost. Regroup and maybe if smart fire all upper MGT and bring in some fresh blood that is not full of the failure that is there now.




RE: without a loan...
By Motoman on 12/4/2008 11:13:58 AM , Rating: 5
Exactly. None of the big 3 are "going out of business" - they can go #11, or at the very worst will get bought up by other (read: successful foreign) automakers, perhaps large investors, who will reorganize, trim the crap off, and put the brands back on track.

Yes, many, many people will lose jobs, and that sucks. But, there's simply no way that the big 3 are going to be "gone."


RE: without a loan...
By austinag on 12/4/2008 11:24:11 AM , Rating: 1
Normally I'm the first guy to say if a company can't turn a profit that's their problem. But in the case of the American auto industry, a lot of the overhead they have to carry was put there by the government and unions. Not their own business decisions. If the US government let the auto industry build cars that people wanted instead of what they decided was best for us (yes, I'm talking to you Ralph Nader) they might not be in this mess.


RE: without a loan...
By MatthiasF on 12/4/2008 12:18:19 PM , Rating: 5
And how many people would be dead because folk like Ralph Nader didn't call the auto industry on being more concerned with the marketing of their cars than their safety? How safe would our roads be today without these safety concerns and more than twelve times the number of cars on the road on highways holding volumes unheard of when Nader began his crusade? How can you blame safety requirements that were put in place more than three decades ago?

The real issue is the same issue Nader fought against in the 60s. The car industry is willing to build and sell a car that puts people at risk to make more money. Case and point, Sports Utility Vehicles. These behemoths are not only an inefficient blight on our nation's energy resources but a huge risk to everyone else on the road, either by making it impossible to see around their height or their inherent dangers from increased weight, causing more road/tire wear, maintenance issues rarely brought up to consumers and more deadly car crashes.

American car companies pushed these things down the public's throat so they could make two and three times the profit margins. Now that the economy can't support their inefficient and expensive nature, suddenly more than half of all their factories which were specifically tooled to build them are worthless.

It's the bed they made for themselves and they should wallow in it. No bailout.

Let them go into Chapter 11, sell off some of their factories and let a new breed of car companies evolve from the mess that meets consumer and resource demands, instead of the accounts and executives far removed from reality.


RE: without a loan...
By TheSpaniard on 12/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: without a loan...
By MPE on 12/4/2008 12:28:17 PM , Rating: 4
Free market made them build big SUVs and big trucks... guess what... those are the same cars now killing their bottom line. Not CAFE standards.

So there goes the free market argument.

Not to mention, Japanese cars have been able to meet and exceed CAFE standards and still can turn a profit.

Bottom line is, it is not the CAFE standards that killed them - it is pure business decisions and union concessions.


RE: without a loan...
By FITCamaro on 12/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: without a loan...
By arrowspark on 12/4/2008 1:52:56 PM , Rating: 5
High Gas prices and CAFE standards are not killing their bottom line. Toyota and Honda also have to deal with CAFE and high gas prices and yet you don't see them on the verge of bankruptcy so your argument doesn't mesh. The Big 3's lack of business flexibility and agility is the problem. Unlike their American counterparts, the Japanese automakers had the wisdom to not put all their eggs in the SUV and truck basket.


RE: without a loan...
By Motley on 12/4/2008 2:34:04 PM , Rating: 1
That would be a great argument if it was true. Unfortunately Toyota and Honda are asking the Japanese government for similiar things. So while they need to meet the same requirements, they are indeed asking for the same things.


RE: without a loan...
By arrowspark on 12/4/2008 2:39:20 PM , Rating: 5
Please provide link to news article that discusses that. As of 11/26 Toyota's long-term foreign and local debt ratings are AA, which is leaps and bounds better than any of the Big 3, and a far cry from needing a bailout.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081126/bs_nm/us_autos


RE: without a loan...
By mindless1 on 12/7/2008 8:16:09 PM , Rating: 3
It's fairly well known that the Japanese devaluation of the Yen essentially subsidizes at a tune often exceeding $4000 per automobile. If American automakers had that don't you think their *profits* and thus debt ratings would be quite a bit better?

In more recent times the sharp rise in gas prices did work in Toyota's favor since their niche was a little smaller more efficient, even more reliable cars. On the other hand, a repair here and there may not make an American automobile cost more in the long run, those going cheap when they buy tend to go cheap on routine maintenance as well which effects actual vs perceived reliability especially when contrasting the last few years of automobiles instead of those made 15+ years ago.


RE: without a loan...
By eyebeeemmpawn on 12/4/2008 12:55:15 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Free market made them build big SUVs and big trucks... guess what... those are the same cars now killing their bottom line. Not CAFE standards.


Is this the same free market that has the Prius in its 9th year of sales here in the US??? Why struggle with a challenging business problem when everyone else is headed to Washington to stand in line for a corporate hand out? Hooray for corporate socialism! oops, I mean capitalism :)


RE: without a loan...
By Suntan on 12/4/2008 1:06:24 PM , Rating: 5
So what was the total production volume of the prius compared to the F150 during that time?

What is this year's production of the prius compared to any of the "mainstream" vehicles this year?

Lastly, how much of Toyota's total ROI is provided by the Prius?

If you answered: "much less", "much less" and "very little" then give yourself a star.

Hooray for arguing something that sounds good but is not really useful when the facts are added in...


RE: without a loan...
By BZDTemp on 12/4/2008 2:29:59 PM , Rating: 3
I think you forget that Toyota is most sold car in the world. The Prius may just be a niche thing so far but it also a tool used by Toyota to learn about a new kind of car. It's not all about how much money one model makes.

The real problem of the big three is that what they make is only really selling in the home market. Very few US models gets outside the US and those that do sell in tiny numbers. And this on the same time where car makers from Europe and Asia are selling so many cars in the US they even build factories on US soil.

Sure Ford also makes Ford cars in Europe but then it's different cars than in the US. Except when they take a European model like the Focus and sell it in the US. The same thing goes for GM and Chrysler. At one time the big three was rich so they bought up European car makers (SAAB, Volvo, Opel...) and shares in Japanese companies (Mazda for example) but they never managed to really use the know how gained to make US cars attractive to the world.

Today the world does not need soccer moms to drive SUV's the size of monster trucks and the big three has therefore little to offer. At best they could close the domestic factories good for trucks only and concentrate on letting the rest build the European and Asian designed cars. (This is of course a simplification but not much)


RE: without a loan...
By mikefarinha on 12/4/2008 1:11:23 PM , Rating: 2
I think it is technically called "Crony Capitalism"


RE: without a loan...
By TheSpaniard on 12/4/2008 4:52:26 PM , Rating: 2
their inability to adapt and provide what people want is whats costing them...

now people want fuel efficiency and they said ok... how about a hybrid SUV@~20MPG when people were thinking hybrid compact@>45MPG

they didnt follow people did not buy... + overproducing things people arent buying


RE: without a loan...
By mindless1 on 12/7/2008 8:24:03 PM , Rating: 3
I agree, people didn't want their smaller cars so much but they did have some and would have shifted production if that's where their profit was. That doesn't have much to do with the situation right now though, now we have a recession plus a recent surge in gas prices to account for their troubles.

What if gas stays as low as it is now for the next 3 years? In that case, some trimming of fat might allow them to become profitable again if the recession eases up.


RE: without a loan...