backtop


Print 28 comment(s) - last by Nfarce.. on Apr 13 at 11:03 PM

Experts say auto sales still likely haven't hit rock bottom

While examining the plight of the domestic automakers -- GM and Chrysler (and to a lesser extent Ford) -- many blame inefficient designs from years past or the added expenses of the high union pay or benefits.  What many forget is the base reason why these companies are in such bad trouble -- cars just aren't selling.

After a miserable January and February, sales in March plunged again.  And it wasn't just domestic automakers either; sales of Toyota, Honda, General Motors and Ford all fell at least 36 percent for the month.  There were some small signs of hope -- all of companies posted small gains from January and February and all of them beat their forecast -- except for Toyota.

Auto sales are at their lowest levels in 27 years, but auto executives are still wary of saying that they've hit rock bottom.  But as GM and Chrysler LLC fight to avoid bankruptcy without their requested bailout loans, some of their employees took heart at the small bright spots in the bad news.  Mark LaNeve, vice president for GM North America vehicle sales states, "Maybe we're starting to...show some signs of life."

Emily Kolinski Morris, Ford's senior U.S. economist, in a conference call says that she believes that sales will bottom out in three to four months and then will climb again.  Still, Ford isn't counting on it -- its planned production remains in check well through the end of the year.  George Pipas, Ford's director of sales analysis says, "There's no point in trying to get ahead of ourselves."

Meanwhile the clock is ticking for Ford's competitors.  Chrysler has to try to negotiate a merger with Fiat LLC and GM has to massively restructure within 60 days.  If the companies meet these goals set out by the federal government, they will receive some assistance, though it appears that the assistance is a one-time offer and that the feds will not grant more bailout loans subsequently.  Both companies, while trying to fulfill these goals, are also preparing bankruptcy filings.  GM says there is a significant chance that it will go bankrupt by June -- just two months from now.

GM was hit worst by the March sales drop.  Overall its year-to-year sales dropped 45 percent.  However, its laggard brands -- Saturn, Saab and Hummer -- had much worse losses. Hummer sales dropped 76 percent. 

Ford was next worst-affected with a 41 percent overall drop and a whopping 73 percent drop in SUV sales.  Toyota Motors recorded a 39 percent sales drop, while its Japanese rival Honda saw a 36 percent sales drop.

The good news for Toyota and Honda is that they always have sales in their home nation to fall back on.  While sales in Japan have also been hit by the recession, Toyota and Honda enjoy a virtual monopoly on auto sales in Japan thanks to lack of dealerships and parts repair centers (in turn to a mix of government policies and public sentiment).  Sadly, for GM, Ford, and Chrysler they enjoy no such captive audience as their sales continue to plunge.



Comments     Threshold


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

By Spuke on 4/2/2009 3:45:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Why are so many people confused by the economy...
You might as well throw yourself in that group cause you don't understand it either. Recessions are a part of a capitalistic society. Recessions are not a mistake of capitalism. It weeds out the weak and preserves the strong, when left alone anyways. But no one has the balls to let things occur naturally. Then you have people like yourself that think the world's ending and that this is unprecedented and we're all going to die because you were high during history class and didn't pay attention to how this sh!t works.

This simply one of many recessions in my lifetime and I'm not worried about anything. Even if I lose my job, I'll simply get another one. And one day the economy will be booming again and all of you short memory a$$holes will forget about this recession (again) and start buying houses you can't afford (again). And the cycle of ignorance continues.


RE: Why are so many people confused by the economy...
By HVAC on 4/2/2009 5:00:51 PM , Rating: 4
Unfortunately, the approach you condone doesn't bode well for those raising families and building communities. Children and Seniors survive and thrive in stability.

Some churn and change is good, but too much or too protracted and things start to break.


By Spuke on 4/2/2009 7:02:36 PM , Rating: 2
Things are already broken, it's called a recession. Right now, things aren't stable and most old people and kids are still alive. In a capitalist society, recessions come and go. Good times and bad times. Just the way it is. Nothing is perfect and nothing lasts forever.


By tmouse on 4/3/2009 8:22:16 AM , Rating: 3
While I agree to some extent, these cycles seem to be coming at closer and closer intervals. There is such a thing as cascading system failure. We have not been really addressing our basic issues ; but merely slipping back to a artificial cycle of "recoveries" by increased debt spending at ALL levels. Even now we are being fed the lines that all we have to do is restore consumer confidence and start consuming again and all will be well. Consuming is an integral part; BUT only if savings, investment and production are also figured into the equation. No one has really figured out how to work the "information technology" age to adequately replace the production age. We have lost a significant part of our production capability and have not really figured out how to capitalize on the information based economy. Our spending will help the producing countries more while they are also building "IT" economies without the costs we accrued by developing them; through our outsourcing. Add to this the rapid losses to our tax base as the baby boomers from the last few major booms are retiring, lowering our tax revenues while removing funds from the pension plans and tapping social security benefits and things will continue to get ugly over the course of the next decade. Furthering this mess is the desire to improve social programs under the "new-speak" of "infrastructure" (I'm not saying whether or not the ideas are right or wrong for society; BUT when the economy is in a tailspin it's not the best time to undertake them). We lack the basic political spine (both parties) to be real leaders and instead have popularity contests fueled by the media in the form of "news" run by entertainment divisions, and as long as we "get a bit of what we want" we remain in total apathy, well the check is coming due and there may not be a door wide enough for us to all run out through.


By mholler on 4/3/2009 11:04:28 AM , Rating: 2
While I agree with the general conservative overtones of your post and that we are headed in the wrong direction in general, the historical data does not back up your observation of recessions occurring on a more frequent basis.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/20510977/
http://seekingalpha.com/article/47291-u-s-expansio...

The fact of the matter is that recessions are less frequent today then they have been in the past, and they are also shorter.


By tmouse on 4/6/2009 7:49:01 AM , Rating: 3
The problem is in the definition and the way we "recovered". Prior to the mid 60's recovery was through increased production and savings and investment. Currently we "recover" through increased debt spending, I'm no economist but I believe; all we are doing is hiding the symptoms while the underlying root caused has continued to grow. Having Nobel prize winners as past members is not necessarily a guarantee of real knowledge or success. I personally know 3, and while they are smart they are no smarter than any of their associates (in one case a smart person became a prime example of the equine paradox after winning). Also I'm not sure how fair it is to look at intervals when there has been fundamental paradigm shifts in the nature of the economy. We were not a real economic power prior to the 50's, WWII induced our upsurge as a production leader. This continued maybe through the 70"s to the eighties when we began to falter. The "booms" following were more paper than reality. We seem to jump from one scheme to another which inflates things a bit but with no real secure base and then falls apart, usually with some sort of scandal. We really have to get in touch with the fundamentals and really form a plan on how to make an information based economy work, I do not think anyone has really done this yet. I feel if we do not we will see more and more recessions, if not actual depressions and they will get worse. Spending is the economic equivalent of taking aspirin, it eases the pain but does not cure anything.


By jcbond on 4/8/2009 2:02:22 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're definitely on to something. Our grandparents (maybe for some out there, great-grandparents) did not live in debt. They paid cash for everything including houses, and were embarassed by the idea of being in debt to anyone for any reason.
Our parents thought debt was dumb, except for housing, and even then probably looked 10-15 year mortgages.
Our generation *lives* in debt. And this artificially increases consumption, and artificially increases wealth. Don't get me wrong - a capitalist society creates value and increases wealth overall. I just think if our economy wasn't based so much on debt, our "wealth" would increase at a slower rate.
And it isn't just our personal debt. Our congressmen and president spend money like it belongs to someone else... Oh wait it does! ;-)


By birdshot80 on 4/9/2009 2:13:21 PM , Rating: 2
I agree 100% jcbond. I wish that I could say I haven't contributed to the problem of living beyond our means through debt and credit. Somehow our generation has grown up to believe we can have whatever we want right away without needing to learn patients and sacrifice to reach our goals. I do believe it is this mentality in individuals, corporations and government that is largely responsible for the current state of our economy.


By Regs on 4/9/2009 11:37:04 AM , Rating: 2
I know what you're getting at, but maybe you're overlooking something I've noticed. I see doctors working 36 hour shifts, I see rock miners working all shifts of the day to make sure their kids get an education, I see immigrants wanting to come to America at all costs just to have the freedom to succeed in a career. Our political environment and capitalist nature encourages growth and advancement, though there are unfortunate byproducts of this system like greed and excess that could unbalance the equilibrium from time to time. To me, that's just human nature and the way it will always be.


By phxfreddy on 4/3/2009 6:18:22 AM , Rating: 2
You are incanting King Canute and his willing out the tides....

LOL.... Children and seniors thrive??? ... get a clue. The world does not work like you think it does. The world of nature and that includes man goes at its own pace. Empires rise and fall and all beyond the ability of man to control it.

...don't agree? Go read your history book. One not put together by liberal fantasy creators.


By mindless1 on 4/12/2009 9:55:29 PM , Rating: 2
Our society, and economy, is governed by laws. That's not "world of nature".

It's not beyond the ability of man to control it, since the empires that rise, and those that fall, do so through man's actions.

There is no natural pace to our society and economy today, it is centered heavily around technology, communication, a pace of data acquisition, information access, and processing with exponential increase over a few decades ago. This is in stark contrast to the thousands of years before this period.


By phxfreddy on 4/3/2009 6:22:05 AM , Rating: 1
Here Here!! on your Good Knight Sir Obama SpendsAlot point.

At the risk of being called names Obama seems to have alot in common with his African dictator cousins in the area of trying to aggregate power in the government and most certainly with his "money management" skills which are TOTALLY lacking and erroneous.


By Spuke on 4/3/2009 3:13:54 PM , Rating: 3
Some of you guys act like big spending by governments is something new. It surely isn't desirable but unless WE start electing politicians OTHER than the status quo, we're getting what we ask for and should not be surprised. If you REALLY want change, vote outside the Republican and Democratic parties!!!!!


By Reclaimer77 on 4/3/2009 5:03:02 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If you REALLY want change, vote outside the Republican and Democratic parties!!!!!


No. Just vote for Conservative Republicans.

I keep seeing this sentiment on DT, about voting for Independents, and frankly it's not realistic. An Independent president will have zero backing in Congress. A few Independent congressmen will have not nearly enough votes to sway anything. And, of course, the media would do nothing but further marginalize their impact on politics.

It's a nice idea, but a 3 party system was never intended to work in this country, and I honestly can't see it ever happening.


By FITCamaro on 4/6/2009 9:42:29 AM , Rating: 2
Personally I say they abolish the Republican Party and form the Conservative Party. Guys like Jim Demint can stay. Guys like McCain and Lindsey Goober Gramnesty can move to the Democrat ticket.


By Reclaimer77 on 4/6/2009 9:48:56 AM , Rating: 2
Would take too long.

At this point Washington DC just needs to eat a nuke, or a great flood, or something of the like to clean out all the filth and garbage from it, so we can start over fresh and new.


By mindless1 on 4/12/2009 9:57:26 PM , Rating: 2
How about abolishing parties altogether and instead have the people vote on the individual issues, or rather, vote on a limited % of them still spreading out the entire population of voters among all issues, so they are voting on what is most important to them individually but not on what isn't.


By Nfarce on 4/13/2009 11:03:59 PM , Rating: 2
Oh the irony of that comment! Washington was against any party development because he foresaw it as eventual self destruction of a nation from within. Damned if he wasn't right, just 232 years later. This nation has become more and more polarized with every election since Reagan. And the media telling us that Obama has brought the nation together is just mind numbingly laughable.


By phxfreddy on 4/3/2009 6:25:48 AM , Rating: 2
And ... Meth user always thinks solution to coming down is more speed.

Politician with economy coming down off easy money is more easy money!

That is what you get with government.....L.C.D. ....Lowest Common Denominator behavoir! ...What else can it be? It has to be in concordance with the wishes of a large segment of the populace. It's LCD by definition!


Been there....
By Spuke on 4/2/2009 11:29:50 AM , Rating: 2
Car sales have been plunging since last September. What's new here?




RE: Been there....
By cheetah2k on 4/2/2009 7:31:13 PM , Rating: 1
Seems Mitsubishi hasnt been affected. I guess they're still selling lots of Pajeros, Lancers and Evo's. Speaking of Evo's, I want an X (even tho the IX goes harder)


RE: Been there....
By Spuke on 4/3/2009 3:20:11 PM , Rating: 3
Everyone's down including Mitsubishi which is down 57% from last year. Remember they were hurting when things were good. They only sold 4600 cars last month. GM sold more Cobalts than that.


On the bright side...
By wordsworm on 4/6/2009 9:43:29 AM , Rating: 1
I was taking a look at real estate in Detroit because my father mentioned really cheap houses there. I couldn't believe it: $1,500 for a rundown, but structurally sound and good sized houses. When will this recession hit Canada? When can I get *my* $1,500 4~5 bedroom house with 1~2 bathrooms?! Most of the work I do abroad anyways and come back home for a few months at a time every few years.

I like Obama - I really do. I think Bush was the world's #1 terrorist for the last 8 years.... spawn of Satan perhaps? But, the banks with their low interest rates have artificially made houses exorbitantly expensive. Inadvertantly, perhaps Bush's irresponsible policies will have a benefit to many. With this massive shakedown, maybe at last a home can be bought on a year's salary or two. When I was a kid, my dad was pulling about 15k as a corporal in the air force and he bought a 30k house in British Columbia. Now you can't get something like that downtown in Courtenay for less than 300k. It's *retarded*. Maybe this economic melt down will help the Canadian market reset to a reasonable rate as well. Unfortunately, we had the Liberals before the Conservatives, and they really balanced the budget well and it's taking PM Harper a lot of effort to screw it up - but he is doing his best and has made Canada more vulnerable. Maybe, just maybe I'll see 10-30k houses in Windsor like they have in Detroit yet.




RE: On the bright side...
By jcbond on 4/8/2009 1:44:03 PM , Rating: 3
I live in the metro Detroit area. If it's a structurally sound house for 1.5K, then it's in an area that you really don't want to live in.
Also, if that home is unlived in, count on replacing windows, copper pipes, wiring, lighting fixtures, etc. before moving in.
Kinda seen it...


Tired of auto news?
By tjr508 on 4/3/2009 11:57:12 PM , Rating: 3
Why has there been so much automotive industry news on this site in the last year or two?

I realize that a global push (political mostly) is changing the industry much more quickly than the 20 year transition to EFI, but as far as industries go, I wouldn't consider it a tech industry. Perhaps enough people here have a strong enough opinion to spark discussion which is good, but it's still a bit off topic.

Why don't we hear about the same types of tech from say, the petroleum industry? There's also the medical industry which advances much faster despite perhaps even more government roadblocks in the way. I would even place the heavy machinery industry ahead of the automotive industry as direct injection was pretty standard ten years ago in large diesels.

Hell, laundry machines have made more exciting advancements than cars lately.




Just goes to show
By FITCamaro on 4/2/2009 10:53:06 AM , Rating: 2
Not just domestic automakers are hurting as someone people would lead you to believe.




"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton

















botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki