Grab our RSS Feed

AND

Detroit 3 Viability Plans Go To Congress Today: GM’s CEO Will Drive to DC in Hybrid Malibu

December 2nd, 2008 | Posted in: Financial, General, Politics

In the next round of the fight for their lives, the Detroit 3 automakers will be submitting plans for their viability to the US government today. The plans are expected to be delivered at the close of the stock market. There will reportedly be a short version for public consumption and a long version for Congress, but some lawmakers are expressing concerns that proprietary competitive information might be at risk of being leaked.

Hearings with the 3 CEOs to review those plans are scheduled for Thursday before the Senate Banking Committee and Friday before the House Financial Services Committee.

Congress could then convene for one last lame duck session next Monday December 8th for debate and voting whether or not to immediately approval the $25 billion loans for any or all of the 3 companies.

Key components speculated about the GM plan are a reduction in debt burden by exchanging debt for equity with lenders, a reduction in brand number with Saturn, Pontiac, Saab, and Hummer at risk, and concessions from the UAW to end pay for terminated workers and reductions in retiree healthcare benefit. Of particular interest to us will be more details on how GM intends to roll out advanced technology fuel efficient vehicles like the Chevy Volt.

If Congress decides not to loan GM the money, then Chapter 11 bankruptcy might have to take place, at which point CEO Rick Wagoner would be replaced potentially with CFO Fritz Henderson.

Furthermore, November auto sales, projected to be 25% less than last year are also due out today.

It was just reported that Mr. Wagoner will be traveling to Capitol Hill, not by jet, but by driving a Hybrid Chevy Malibu.

Still no word on whether the Volt will be there. I asked a GM spokesperson who said he would keep us posted and that “it was a good idea.”

The end game is upon us.

Source (Automotive News) and (Wall Street Journal)

[UPDATE: Post changed to indicate GMs CEO will be going to Capital Hill in a Hybrid Malibu]

Posted by: Lyle

151 Responses to “Detroit 3 Viability Plans Go To Congress Today: GM’s CEO Will Drive to DC in Hybrid Malibu”

Rashiid Amul Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:47 am

Good luck to them. I hope they don’t screw anything up this time.

(Quote)
brad Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:55 am

Wouldn’t it be something if the headlines read:

“GM’s CEO arrives in Washington in a 100mpg Hybrid!”

(Quote)
Gsned57 Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:59 am

CSPAN already has some of the testimony

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/11/25/snl-takes-on-the-detroit-3-bailout/

This is awesome

My question for the big 3 is this, Why haven’t you already executed a long term viability plan? You’ve been loosing money for years. Why wait until your knocking on deaths door? Poor management

(Quote)
Dave B Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:59 am

My understanding is the [former] Big 3 are asking for low interest loans, which may even make the government money. Although the public understanding seems to be that this is a bailout.

And for the sake of millions of jobs, I agree Rashiid.

(Quote)
Right Lane Cruiser Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:00 am

It is really sad that GM has come to this. There are so many “if only” statements to be made…

The Volt should have been out 2 years ago with large format NiMH cells, but now a certain oil company owns the patent because GM sold it.

I certainly hope they make it through their bad straits but the odds aren’t favorable for the GM we know.

(Quote)
RB Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:04 am

The WSJ says that the Ford CEO will announce that Ford will offer a battery-powered electric van by 2011 and a PHEV by 2012.

Also “Mr Mulally plans to drive by car, possibly a Ford Escape hybrid…”

Ford is not asking for any money immediately.

(Quote)
Jean-Charles Jacquemin Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:18 am

Good Luck Volt,

JC NPNS

(Quote)
J Man Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:19 am

If Congress decides not to loan GM the money, then Chapter 11 bankruptcy might have to take place, at which point CEO Rick Wagoner would be replaced potentially with CFO Fritz Henderson.
_____________________________________________________

So you take one guy that messed up the company and replace him with another guy that helped mess it up?

(Quote)
Eco Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:20 am

Thanks to the demise of my Pontiac yesterday, I really hope Congress sees that the Volt is the answer to GM’s problems, and makes advanced vehicles the most important condition of their rescue package.

GM’s problems are simple. I bought a vehicle for 29,000 dollars, and seven years later, it was worth 2 percent of that. Add on the 10,000 dollars in repairs, and I paid 39,000 dollars for capital expenses in transportation for about 7 years, and 140,000 miles.

If my math is right, I paid around 2.8 cents per mile to drive a GM, not including gas, oil, tires, and other variable expenses.

A 50,000 dollar volt would have been cheaper.

(Quote)
Guy Incognito Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:21 am

It would be so cool if the GM reps showed up in the Volt.

On a different note, has anyone noticed how our elected officials were so eager to hand over the better part of a trillion dollars to Wall Street with virtually not strings attached, while our automakers are made to submit all kinds of plans and proposals for just a smidgen of what Wall Street got?

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:22 am

I’m wondering why the hearings got pushed from Wednesday to Thursday at the last minute, I don’t see any reason to do that…time is short, they are all there and ready to go.

I can’t imagine it is to have more time to go over the plans, they all know the big 2.8’s plans can’t possibly make them profitable by any stretch in this environment

/I have a feeling someone has been working the phones to see where they stand on a vote right now…and it the results turned out not so great (or too close to call) and they need the extra day to try and get some leverage on some ‘nay’ votes and turn them around

Side note: Always fun to predict auto sales number, here are my picks

Overall: -30%

Toyota: -19%
Honda – 24%
Nissan -28%
Ford -33%
Chrysler – 42%
GM – 47%

GM is actually a tough call for me here, I was going to put them well over 50%, then they rolled out the ‘Red Tag’ early…hard to say what kind of effect that has in this environment. (GM may very well be a lot better…but I’ve grown more pessimistic on my opinion on auto sales overnight)

The bigger story this month is the precipitous drop off in international sales for all automakers.

France -17%
Japan -27%
Italy – 30%
Sweden -36% (partial results)
Spain -49.6%

These are big changes, a lot of these regions were only marginally down last month. For example in Europe, the group as a whole where only down 5% for the year (through October).

(Quote)
Endar Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:45 am

yahooooo!
GM will be bankrupt and there would be no suitable EV anytime soon. You – stupid americans – will continue to bye our oil and my f*****g country will continue to live for another decade!
Everyone is happy! Thanks heavens you had G. Bush as president for the last years (and personal thanks to Mr.Bush for Iraq war – which increased oil prices by two or even more times – the same oil we are selling to you).
yahooooo!

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:48 am

From the thread topic:

If Congress decides not to loan GM the money, then Chapter 11 bankruptcy might have to take place, at which point CEO Rick Wagoner would be replaced potentially with CFO Fritz Henderson.
====================

Hey, first time I’ve heard you coming around to my side of thinking Lyle. C11? Fritz as new CEO? Talking up the auto sales? I’m digging it, lol.

/as always…the hot coffee is on, and there is a seat open for you by the fire.

(Quote)
DB Cooper Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:52 am

The single most important thing I’m watching for is whether these restructuring plans include addressing
1)right-sizing to shed redundant brands (without hundreds of millions in lawsuits from dealerships)
2)right-sizing with respect to workforce (without billions in buyouts)
3)dealing with legacy costs (which if not addressed will probably put production labor over $100/ man hour by the time the downsizing is done)

IMO if these are not realistically addressed, there is no future – and a bailout loan is just more tax money wasted.

If however these things do get addressed, this could be the first time the domestic auto makers have had a fair shot in their own backyard in over a decade.

I’m cautiously optomistic today…

How the participients arrive is just drama crap for the crap-consuming public. It’d be nice if we could avoid being sidetracked by the irrelevent sideshow crap this time.

(Quote)
DB Cooper Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:02 am

I should add one more point to the above comment.

4)whether the management shows willingness to lead from the front – and tighten their own belts significantly as well.

(Quote)
Tony Gray Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:04 am

DB #14

I just don’t know how your first point can happen in a restructuring plan developed by the automaker alone. Every state has franchise laws and this would take quite some time and a lot of cash to pull off. While I agree this should be a goal, without Ch 11 (or a buy in from all the dealers) I don’t see this as a cornerstone.

2 and 3 seem doable, especially with the recent comments by the UAW that they will negotiate to make sure the bail out gets passed. This may be a case of the fleas almost killing the dog, but we’ll see. They HAVE to dump that jobs bank, at least in its current form, which will free up money almost immediately.

(Quote)
RB Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:22 am

#11 statik — too optimistic about the Japanese brands at
Toyota: -19%
Honda – 24%
Nissan -28%
=======================

My guess is

Toyota: -31%
Honda – 29%
Nissan -38%

Things are tough all over.
I agree with your other guesses.

/just guessing

(Quote)
TED in Fort Myers Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:22 am

1. I hope the chosen battery maker is revealed.
2. A new plan comes out that the Volt will beat the iMev to market.
3. Every model that survives the cut will be available in some form of electric.
4. A new Volt model is revealed that is all electric with 2x the battery.
5. Last but not least Rick shows up to congress in a Volt.

(Quote)
Firefly Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:22 am

.(fingers crossed…)

Here’s hoping for the best…

(Quote)
Dave B Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:36 am

RB @ 7,

I’ll bet Ford’s plug-in hybrid is the Escape that they’ve been “testing” for years. It seems like a winner as the power companies love it. Now the van is interesting, as there are some very hot sellers from Smith.

(Quote)
Murray Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:41 am

What would be better mode of transportation to Capitol Hill for Mr. Waggoner?

A Dog?
or a Pony?

(Quote)
Morgan Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:49 am

16 Tony Gray:

It just depends on the contracts. Their plan could be as simple as reducing the product offering in those brands to one ugly vehicle and then wait a year.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:52 am

#2 brad Says: “Wouldn’t it be something if the headlines read:
“GM’s CEO arrives in Washington in a 100mpg Hybrid!”
————————————————————————————–
Careful! The Prius plug-in coversions are already advertising 100mpg. See here for details:
http://www.setamericafree.org/plugdcmay06.htm

The Volt will get much better milage than 100mpg. Using a typical yearly driving patern of:
• 30 days at 8 miles per day
• 50 days at 16 miles per day
• 240 days at 30 miles per day
• 30 days at 60 miles per day
• 3 days at 450 miles per day
The Volt will average 311 MPG. See here for details:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/Plugin_mileage.xls
(note: this spread sheet is designed to calculate MPG for any plug-in)

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:52 am

This is an important day in the life of the big three automakers. I wish them well, but at the same time I wish they were in a position where this would not have to be done. We can blame them, the unions and ourselves for much of their troubles. Them for the terrible management they have put forth with little to no forward looking decisions. The unions for their ever increasing demands that put the financial viability of the companies at risk. Ourselves because we as consumers decided decades ago that American made autos were inferior and have not cared enough to take a serious second or third look at the improvements that have been made by all three automakers. Sure, you will find some problems with vehicles built the them, but who can say truthfully that the foreign autos are trouble free. I see Japanese and European autos stranded by the road side all the time. I see them lined up at service centers, just like at GM, Ford and Chrysler dealers. I agree the percentages are with the Japanese although I think the big three build better vehicles than the Europeans and have for many, many years.

We each need to take a good hard look at our vehicle purchase plans and try to find a place in our driveways for an American made automobile. Not just American made, but American owned automobile. It is in our national interest to do so.

Again, I wish the big three well. I pray for the day when they are once again strong American industries and are producing products that all of us want to purchase.

(Quote)
Dave B Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:00 am

N Riley writes, “We each need to take a good hard look at our vehicle purchase plans and try to find a place in our driveways for an American made automobile. Not just American made, but American owned automobile. It is in our national interest to do so.”

My question is this: how the hell do we expect to fix the credit crunch when we need to borrow more money to jumpstart the economy again? This is the chicken and the egg problem–and making a bunch of bad loans to people that do not intend on paying them back is simply a bad idea. As a taxpayer who pays my debts, I’m pissed.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:01 am

#13 statik Says: “Hey, first time I’ve heard you coming around to my side of thinking Lyle. C11?”
————————————————————————————-
If GM goes C11, then they don’t have to pay their bills. That means their parts suppliers go C11. Since Ford and Chrysler use many of the same suppliers, they may go C11. Where does it end?

As many as 3 million jobs could be lost. That would cost U.S. taxpayers around $100B in lost income tax revenue and unemployment benefits.

In other words, it may be cheaper to throw GM a lifesaver than to bury them.

(Quote)
Mitch Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:02 am

GSned57

“My question for the big 3 is this, Why haven’t you already executed a long term viability plan? You’ve been loosing money for years. Why wait until your knocking on deaths door? Poor management”

I rather doubt they have been flying by the seat of their pant all this time..there is a plan, but like most it was based on assumptions, and the basis of those assumptions has changed a wee bit.

Additionally, it is unlikely that the plan was presentation ready. THe big 3 needed to get it in some format that is readily and easily digested.. capitol hill does not need to be bogged down reading 400 page documents.

They needed to boil it to the 12 page essentials, and an expanded support document.

Believe me, I do presentations for a living, and even though we know al the info, it needs to be distilled and funnelled in a concise and complete manner. It takes time.. I have no doubt it was being worked on prior to the 1st meeting.

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:03 am

Sorry gang, I’m pessimistic.

If the worst happens (no Govt money, no C11 / liquidation & no Volt), GM will still have left a legacy to the future of automobiles after a century in the business by kicking the electric car a little further along (in other words, a similar legacy to Tesla’s, which attracted the attention of Bob Lutz).

Our efforts here will not have been wasted.

I can’t believe they’d axe Saturn. It’s probably their best shot at reasonable (urgently needed) small cars.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:04 am

#17 RB

#11 statik — too optimistic about the Japanese brands at
Toyota: -19%
Honda – 24%
Nissan -28%
=======================

My guess is

Toyota: -31%
Honda – 29%
Nissan -38%

Things are tough all over.
I agree with your other guesses.

/just guessing

=====================================

I know Toyota seems low right? My thinking as to why the upside surprise is the ’saved by zero’….Toyota has virtually never offered zero percent financing in its history, so I’m betting there was some demand created by the promotion…but you never know.

/I will note that Toyota’s international and domestic (Japan) numbers are way off for november…so overall it is going to be a very bad month for them

Side note: I can’t wait for GM to try to ‘announce’ they plan to sell SAAB as one of their bullet points for a turnaround plan (they have been shopping in quietly for ages…with no takers). It will also be fun to see if they try to represent selling/shuttering Buick or Saturn…in a very undetailed way. (Maybe they can get the gov’t to get them a pass on the state franchise laws, lol)

(Quote)
Mitch Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:12 am

#26 Dave G

I agree that C11 at a first glance seems reasonable, especially to money guys (Statik..no offence), but people are funny.

-CH11 will make people buy elsewhere, REGARDELSS of government guarantees,
-the number of suppliers and intersts that a prepackaged CH11 would involve is too big to be done quickly (something on the order of 3500 companies / entities)
By the time that happens, GM will be out of cahs, and have to go regular CH11 anyway.
-The economic costs of GM alone goign CH 11 woudl FAR exceed 100 Billion. I would put it closer to 250-300 Billion. (just for the USA)
-It will affect Canada, EU, China, S America…
-It would ruin the housing market too.

But I agree with you..I think GM should submit 2 reports..

1- how we will turn GM around.
2- If you do not bail us out..here is the projected costs to the governemnt.

they will get it..I am willing to bet

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:14 am

#25 Dave B

I understand where you are coming from. I don’t like any type of bail-out plan. But this is not just a simple bail-out, it is a plan backed by guarantees of stock and/or loans agreements. I don’t think congress would agree to any kind of payment to the automakers unless it was paid back.

My suggestion of all of us considering to purchase American owned automobiles was made because we all will reach a point where we need another vehicle. We should consider a vehicle from GM, Ford or Chrysler and give them every opportunity to make a sale. This helps them, sure, but it also helps our economy because the money for the sale stays in the U.S. This is a good thing.

(Quote)
wwskinn3 Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:14 am

#9
Eco says: “…If my math is right, I paid around 2.8 cents per mile to drive a GM, not including gas, oil, tires, and other variable expenses.

A 50,000 dollar volt would have been cheaper.”

SO WOULD A $16,000 TOYOTA.

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:21 am

The intrade betting market has chances of additional federal money being injected in 2008 at 20%.

http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/common/c_cd.jsp?conDetailID=657273&z=1228231245951

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:22 am

#3 Gsned57 Says: “My question for the big 3 is this, Why haven’t you already executed a long term viability plan? ”
————————————————————————————-
They have had the plans, but:
a) each of the 3 plans is different
b) the plans by definition contain company secret data
so it was not possible for them to answer this question in the previous hearing.

As for executing the plans, time will tell. Things change. They never turn out how you plan.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:22 am

I would like congress to give them all a low interest loan with access to more later if they need it and can put prove the need of more.

I would also like congress to offer a tax credit for purchasing a vehicle of certain sizes from one of the three for the next three to four years. This would be in addition to the tax credit now on the books for electric vehicle purchases. The tax credit for purchase would not have to be very big. Somewhere around $3,000 and be financed by an increase in import fees on foreign owned vehicles imported into or made in the U.S. That way if Americans decide they want to purchase a foreign owned vehicle, they can do so and it will help other Americans purchase American owned and made vehicles.

(Quote)
RB Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:28 am

#20 Dave B says
“I’ll bet Ford’s plug-in hybrid is the Escape that they’ve been “testing” for years. It seems like a winner as the power companies love it. Now the van is interesting, as there are some very hot sellers from Smith.”
===================================

These are good points, and I agree. To me the plan by Ford to introduce electrics in 2011 and 2012 is a big development.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:29 am

#24 N. Riley – “Ourselves because we as consumers decided decades ago that American made autos were inferior and have not cared enough to take a serious second or third look at the improvements that have been made by all three automakers.”

I agree with most of what you are saying, but the one big missing piece is the government failure which lead to this mess. Absent a financial meltdown, none of the companies would be in such dire straits. You can view the situation in a number of ways, but one valid perspective is that the government has driven the bus off the highway and into the ditch, and now the driver wants to be convinced to help the injured passengers rather than sit idly by. As taxpayers who elected the leadership which drove the bus over the cliff, we’re more than innocent bystanders.

In this regard, your mention of foreign auto makers is appropriate. Many are already beginning talks to get government money. The auto industry sucks down capital like no other, and it sells a product that has to be financed by consumer loans. As a consequence, it will be the first casualty in the government’s failure to fix the credit markets.

No one at this point would say that Lehman should have been allowed to fail. That was a giant mistake which has made the ditch that much deeper. I hope Congress doesn’t make the same type of mistake in manufacturing.

(Quote)
Bailers Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:34 am

I wish GM could actually tell Congress what they need to hear. How much of the problems they have are because of ignorant interference by the political class into industrial policy.

- Make Unions the lords of their domains by making it almost a crime to say no to them? Check.
- Enact a bunch of worthless reguations that add to the cost of a vehicle and prevent the easy transfer of designs from Europe? Check.
- Make a bunch of speeches about how poorly managed a company is for not producing high efficiency cars, when until 18 months ago no one in this country wanted that? Check. (how dare those evil car companies produce the SUV’s that people couldn’t get enough of)
- Provide billions of dollars to financial companies that made bad loans in the name of the almighty dollar without even ASKING the CEO’s (like Citibank) to resign, but DEMANDING a business plan from GM, Ford, and the other one that asks for a loan? Check. What is Congress going to do with these plans anyway?

if there is any doubt that American’s want large cars, there was a recent story about how the drop in gas price has led to a slight increase in Truck and SUV sales
http://abclocal.go.com/wjrt/story?section=news/local&id=6523059

I know it is small, but it proves that not everyone in this country wants a subcompact. People are still making that great capitalistic opportunity cost tradeoff of a larger car for a larger gas bill. No increase in CAFE standards will change that.

The big three won’t (but should) demand the idiots in the beltway stop interfering in the free market and let the companies actually compete with what people want to buy, not what the environmentalists and Democrats say we should be buying.

(Quote)
RB Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:35 am

#29 statik says
“I know Toyota seems low right? My thinking as to why the upside surprise is the ’saved by zero’….Toyota has virtually never offered zero percent financing in its history, so I’m betting there was some demand created by the promotion…but you never know.”
======================================

Very good point — zero financing is something I had not thought about, and Toyota probably also has financing mechanisms for a wider spread of buyers. I was talking to a person who sells Mazdas yesterday, and he was saying that here in NC there still are potential buyers out looking. He said that people coming by are looking for a low price and financing available. That means he has to work to make the sale, and then he and the dealer don’t make much from it.

(Quote)
RB Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:36 am

Back on the thread topic, I hope that Mr. Wagoner gets to drive the Malibu hybrid himself at least part of the way. If he hasn’t driven one before, I’ll bet he likes it. It’s a nice car, and I see a fair number on the road even in this down market.

(Quote)
RB Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:39 am

#38 Bailers says
if there is any doubt that American’s want large cars, there was a recent story about how the drop in gas price has led to a slight increase in Truck and SUV sales
http://abclocal.go.com/wjrt/story?section=news/local&id=6523059
====================================================

Yes, and for better or worse if the US rescues the automakers, it has to rescue the companies that are there now, which are big vehicle companies, rather than the companies one hopes they might become.

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:41 am

@Dave B 20

fyi, the Ford Escape Hybrid 2009 is licensed technology from Toyota. Smart move by Ford. It’s very easily tweaked tp a PHEV.
I’m considering that car for my lead foot wife.

(Quote)
nataraj Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:43 am

So, Wagoner remembers how to drive ? Does he really have a driving license ?

What asses.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:49 am

#37 DonC

The problem with congress is that they are stupid when it comes to business and financial matters. They spend most of their time attending to the needs of the few and forsaking the needs of the many. The “few” are those friends that keep giving them cash to get re-elected. Of course, some of these friends are union bosses with very large checking accounts full of money taken from hard working union members who just don’t know what is being done with their money and when they do find out, they are powerless to stop it. No, congress is a terrible place to look for help, but they are the only ones that have the resources to give the aid necessary to “heal” the economy. Problem is the healing will be a band-aid placed over a very big sore. The salve will ease the pain and make it feel better, but in the long run, when you take the band-aid off the sore will still be there.

We must have management of American companies making smart decisions that are based on sound business practices. Our banking system should not be required to make bad loans to people who can not afford the loan and will never repay it. Government is the primary cause of most of our problems and they should get out of the way, but they won’t. This “financial crisis” is just the medicine the Democrats have been waiting for. With the failure of the Republican party to govern as a conservative, cost cutting, less government party, the Democrats are now in a position to take real control of the American economy like never before. They will do just that and I would be very surprised if the Republicans can stop them (or will even try). Our businesses may never be the same again. Our country may never be the same again. We will just have to wait and see. One thing for sure, we can not count on the American public to do what is right. They are feed the news in such a way as to make everything seem like the right decisions will be made and everyone is going to be just fine. The news media will now do a 180 degree turn and be the “friend” of government instead of having to always report only the bad things (and some made-up things) about the current administration. Hateful articles and opinion pages will be filled with love and understanding and cheers for the victories to come. Yes, I am very optimistic as I know each of you will be in the coming days. Yes, it is wonderful to live in this great country and be governed by such a wonderful “governing class”.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:05 am

#67 statik Says:
November 20th, 2008 at 4:06 pm

Good time to take a stab at amount they probably will request don’t you think? Not going to have much else to talk about from here on out for awhile. This is of course just a WAG with nothing to back it up…just spit-balling for laughs.

GM: 11-12 billion
Ford: 9-10 billion
Chrysler: 7 billion

http://gm-volt.com/2008/11/20/breaking-bipartisan-auto-aid-deal-reached/
————————————————————–
Ford is out first…(drumroll please)….asking for 9 billion:
(guess they didn’t want to wait for the close to start leaking)

Ford to ‘Aggressively Restructure,’ Seeks $9 Billion in Bridge Financing

“Ford Motor Co. unveiled a plan to turn around its operations, emphasizing cost-cutting steps and improved fuel economy of its fleet, as the auto maker seeks $9 billion in bridge financing from the federal government amid decades-low sales and credit-market constraints.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122823078705672467.html?mod=yahoo_hs&ru=yahoo

/so far…1 for 1

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:06 am

I cannot understand why GM has not developed a hybrid car similar to the Toyota Prius. I know all about the two-mode hybrids, but GM needs a hybrid in a much smaller car than the Malibu. Plus, the two-mode hybrid does not offer much in the way of fuel savings over a standard vehicle of the same type. GM, Ford and Chrysler needs to compete directly with the Prius and the Insight with cars of equal size and efficiency. They should have done this five or six years ago. If they had, they may have been in a better position than they are today.

I agree government should reduce some regulations preventing GM and the others from bringing to our shores some of the fuel efficient vehicles they have made in Europe. This should be a priority and should be done for the next ten years to give the big three time to get their companies under control and start producing the vehicles we all need. And, yes, we still need big trucks and some SUVs. Trucks are used throughout the country in industry and on the farm. Can you imagine a 300 pound, 6 foot 6 inch person trying to drive a small economy car the size of Honda Fit? No, I can’t either. We are a country of very diverse needs and people. One size does not fit all. But, those big trucks and SUVs should be made as fuel efficient as possible, even to the sake of throttling the engine to prevent high speeds, if that is what it takes to keep them more efficient.

(Quote)
James L. Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:14 am

I plan to write my congressman and tell him to vote NO money for these automakers. There is just no reason to start pumping our money into these dying companies. Let the go into bankruptcy and sort it out themselves. We should not reward incompetence and bad business decisions.

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:16 am

I want to publicly thank Lyle for a very nice base post that not only provides useful information but also sticks to the facts.

A very wise move to drive to DC in cars they make, and a hybrid to boot! As others have said, time is a commodity, like for anyone, also for these guys. Hopefully Wagoner will be a passenger most of the way and be able to do work. How long of a drive is it from Detroit to DC?

(Quote)
Morgan Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:22 am

I would prefer to see the Congress held to the fire a little bit as well. Specifically I would like to see the Big Three put in their bailout that the models currently produced in Europe would be deemed as meeting US Safety and Environmental standards. Of course the headlines the next day would read:

“Big Three ask Congress to relax environmental standards as part of restructuring plan!”

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:22 am

A little piece of ridiculousness in Ford’s ‘plan’:

“In Ford’s plan, the company said it would restructure to operate profitably in the current economic climate, improve its balance sheet and accelerate development of new products to match shifts in customer interest. It also sees U.S. also sales being below historical norms through 2011, with sales of 12.5 million, 14.5 million and 15.5 million, respectively. This year’s industry sales are projected to be about 13.5 million, down from last year’s 16.1 million.

Despite what is expected as a protracted sales slump, Ford said it should break-even, at minimum, both overall and in North America in 2011, excluding items.”
—–
So lets get this straight on their predictions for NA auto sales to have this ‘breakeven’

2008 13.5 million
2009 12.5 million
2010 14.5 million
2011 15.5 million

I think I see where ‘the plan’ is going to fall apart.

The current SAAR (seasonally adjusted annualized rate), which indicates what sales would be for the full year if they remained at the month’s pace all year, (with adjustments for seasonal fluctuations), is at 10.6 million…compared to 16 million last year at this time. It looks to go even lower this month.

They are predicting only a 20% drop over the ALL TIME high for 2009? Only 10% lower than the ALL TIME high in 2010 and 4% off the ALL TIME high in 2011? C’mon. So in 2 years and 1 month the industry will be right back close to its ALL TIME high? (Did I emphasize ‘all time high’ enough? Probably not)

Side note: Most analysts have already cut the 08 number to the 13.3-13.4 range,so Ford is already over inflating 2008 numbers…with all of 29 days left in the year.

This playbook is almost identical to GM’s 2007 playbook they were feeding everyone. Projections founded on misconceptions of market realities.

(Quote)
Mitch Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:26 am

#50 Statik

are those projections based on all time highs?

Just curious

(Quote)
Dave K. Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:27 am

$25,000,000,000 for the big 3 is a “bail out” until it’s paid back.

I believe it’s much better for the U.S. Government to BUY vehicles from the big 3 rather than casting money at the big ‘maybe’.

The U.S. Government should also sponsor a home grown battery factory. And provide batteries to the big 3 at cost. This will take the R&D burden off the big 3 and also offer the buyer a cost effective solution to “buying American” and supporting American jobs (create tax revenue).

Can anyone else follow this thinking? Are we just going to hurl barrels of money at them? Are the people in charge really this blind?

=D~

(Quote)
Gary Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:29 am

46 N Riley: “Plus, the two-mode hybrid does not offer much in the way of fuel savings over a standard vehicle of the same type.”

What rock have you been living under? On GM’s hybrid SUVs, the in-town fuel economy gain is 50%–to the same level as a “gas guzzler” 4-cylinder Camry in-town.

(Quote)
Morgan Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:31 am

52 Dave K.:

The US would be at a WTO hearing as a defendant quicker than you can say Japanese Government.

The US just needs to quietly use DARPA to fund battery research and then ensure that the patent, once developed, goes to the Big 3 under licensing rights and that the Big 3 are paying enough in licensing that it is closed to further agreements.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:38 am

#51 mitch

I don’t know if you know this, but those percentages I gave where all off of all time highs.

Actually, that is a lie. It is just off of 2007 numbers, I’m telling ‘tall tales’ like my favorite Detroit automakers here…but don’t tell anyone.

(Auto sales actually peaked in 2000 at around 17.3-17.4 — My fib made me feel dirty about it after I said it, but it was too late to edit, so I’m coming clean now…and I’m also selling my private jet to make up for the transgression)

(Quote)
M1EK Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:48 am

The only better vehicle to drive there would be the Escalade Hybrid, since it would show even more clearly that until desperation turned FUD into critical survival strategy, GM was intent on attempting to PROVE their lies about hybrids being useless.

The best thing altogether would be for the Ford exec to drive side by side in his Escape Hybrid, which surpasses the mileage of the joke Malibu by quite a bit despite beginning with severe disadvantages due to its platform.

(Quote)
Tom M Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:55 am

It’s a shame this money, what ever you want to call it, a small portion of it will only be used for product design and production. The main portion of these funds will be used to shore up their Hugh benefit programs. At present GM does not have the amount they will owe for the medical part they negotiated with the union. C-11 does not mean the end of the world, it means restructuring with a plan to make the company viable again. Many companies have used C-11
and survived because of a solid plan to restructure.
Tom

(Quote)
Rebecca Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:55 am

No one at this point would say that Lehman should have been allowed to fail.
=================================================

I can assure you that’s not correct.

(Quote)
Thomas Jefferson Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:58 am

Shut these mismanaged companies down immediately. The U.S. Taxpayers cannot afford to throw their hard-earned money down the toilet. This is nothing short of a CEO Stick’em Up. Those theives should be put behind bars. Let the so-called Big 3 go under. There will be plenty of smaller companies that will be created to take their place, that is how a capitalist society is supposed to work. Government bailouts are just socialism at work, welcome to the United States of France.

(Quote)
Texas Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Excellent idea! Have fun Mr. Wagoner.

Who saved GM? The electric car saved GM. Ironic, don’t you think?

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:09 pm

#53 Gary

”

46 N Riley: “Plus, the two-mode hybrid does not offer much in the way of fuel savings over a standard vehicle of the same type.”

What rock have you been living under? On GM’s hybrid SUVs, the in-town fuel economy gain is 50%–to the same level as a “gas guzzler” 4-cylinder Camry in-town.”

++++++++++++++++++++++

I guess the wrong rock. When I said two-mode hybrid I was really thinking about the hybrid system in the Malibu which does not offer much efficiency over the standard Malibu. But, even saying that, I think GM’s two-mode hybrid system should be improved more. I hope we will see further improvements year after year in all the hybrid vehicles produced by GM, Ford and, one day, Chrysler.

(Quote)
charlie h Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Driving to DC in a hybrid Malibu should really illustrate GM’s problems for Congress. GM sticks an oversized starter motor into a car, adds minor optimizations that could be made to the regular Malibu, overprices it, builds very few and expects it to compete with the likes of the Prius, Camry and Escape hybrids; technologically advanced vehicles that really deliver the goods.

This should help Congress decide what to do with GM’s request for a bailout.

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:12 pm

#50 Statik

I’m confused. Are you suggesting the Big 3 are fudging the numbers so they can get the bailout? What on earth would motivate them to do such a thing. LOL.

I’m not worried though. I trust my esteemed congressman to be able to see the true long-term viability of the automakers, even if self-interested investors can not. Oh ye of little faith.

(Quote)
Right Lane Cruiser Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:13 pm

A minor but important point — Ford did NOT license Toyota’s HSD system for their Escape Hybrid. They developed (with help from Volvo engineers) the system independently based on what was learned from the PNGV initiative in the late ’90s. It is true that the systems (Toyota and Ford) are nearly identical in execution but neither is a copy of the other. There were some negotiations to ensure no patent infringement, but that is it.

Having driven both, Ford has some distinct advantages with their system and they will be leveraging those heavily with some improvements in their upcoming Fusion Hybrid. Either of these could be “upgraded” to plug-in status in short order and with a modicum of extra expense.

Ford is well positioned and I expect that they would weather the current economic issues without any Federal funding at all — and come out the other side in quite good shape.

I still think that the series hybrid approach taken by GM is the less complex and more logical transition state to full electric, though.

(Quote)
JLS Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Okay folks, common sense—instead of the government opening it’s checkbook that’s already in the red–why don’t the execs open theirs? Seriously do these folks really need to be making 7-8 figure salaries? Just like Fannie and Freddie—who really needs to make $100Million a year. These execs make too much money–trickle it down. $100K okay even $200K but in the millions? why? Let’s look at their personal check books and see what they are spending their salaries on. Honestly folks—If the greedy folks go under, they deserve it. I hate it for the workers but like my grandparents told me–”nothing lasts forever”. They never thought the steel mills would go under either……The cars today are built cheaper and hence built like crap and you have to buy new ones more often…..yet the prices keep going up. $40K for a vehicle? honestly where does all that money go? It may not seem like a lot but multiply that by the number of cars produced….it’s crazy.

(Quote)
JLS Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Ok–if people are going to trust their congress folks—-you are seriously sad—they are no better. Look at AIG–they are using the bailout money to pay bonues…again—-GREEDY GREEDY PEOPLE need to no longer apply for these jobs…get rid of all of them….Why pay people millions of dollars a year to play golf.

(Quote)
Dan Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Why isn’t Buick on the chopping block? Does anyone still buy those? I would axe Buick before Pontiac or Saturn.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:24 pm

One of the Senators from Michigan was interviewed on NPR this morning. He said that every auto producing country in the world subsidizes the industry at some level, in order to retain the manufacturing jobs. He said that, if you think that the US manufacturers are playing on a level field with those of Japan, Korea, and Europe, you are living in a dream world.

When asked why the Japanese and Korean owned factories in the US are still producing a profit, he said that he wouldn’t be surprised if their governments are supporting them somehow.

While the Senator from Michigan may clearly have an agenda, I still sense a ring of truth in some of this.

Never mind the massive subsidies given to those factories by the states and municipalities where they have located.

I have to agree with N Riley on the importance of buying American. When the last manufacturing job goes overseas, or over to the control of a foreign corporation, we become a 3rd world country. Write it down.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:26 pm

You were right RB, I totally blew Toyota, ’saved by zero’ did nothing for them it looks like.

Toyota – 33%
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7b2207BC93-1763-478D-A916-21C58A789A47%7d&siteid=yhoof2

Fords -31%
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN0226011420081202?rpc=44

Not looking like a good day for auto sales, Toyota and Ford were supposed to post the two strongest sales of the foreign and domestic automakers (respectively).

(Quote)
noel park Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:28 pm

#67 Dan:

I have to put in with you there. All 3 of them, come to that.

(Quote)
DB Cooper Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:36 pm

RE Buick -

Keep the Lacrosse. Ditch the rest.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:41 pm

I just noticed something in the press release from Ford that I think is interesting:

“Ford also said it plans to produce 430,000 vehicles in the first quarter of 2009, down from the 692,000 it produced a year earlier.”
———————

Thats almost a 38% cut…but the ‘turnaround plan’ they submitted TODAY forecasts for 12.5 million cars to be sold in 2009, thats only a 20% drop.

Hrm, so strange. How could they have managed to not connect the fact they have two mutually exclusive things being released concurrently? They probably just forget they can’t actually sell more cars than they actually produce…simple error.

If you go by Ford’s planned production for Q1 and extrapolate it out, that is only sales of 10 million cars in 2009…which is lower than october’s SAAR of 10.6 million and just about ’spot on’ the forecasted 10.2 million annualized rate for november.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:52 pm

#67 Dan

Why isn’t Buick on the chopping block? Does anyone still buy those? I would axe Buick before Pontiac or Saturn.
———–

State franchise laws…they might table a ‘plan’ to try and sell a share of it, but other than China buying its local Buick business I don’t see a buyer. It cost them over 2 billion to get away from the Oldsmobile dealers…which would be 2 billion they don’t have now, and it would be a much worse number with Buick. (GM took a 2.5 billion charge overall on the loss).

Side note: Where is that last 2004 Alero GLS 4-door sedan now? (Probably getting its intake manifold gasket replaced or getting a brake job–like all N-body cars)

(Quote)
Mitch Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:57 pm

#72 Statik..

They are likely ramping down 38% to kill inventory right now and expect the sales number to be as forcasted.

My guess…

(Quote)
DonC Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:57 pm

#58 Rebecca – “I can assure you that’s not correct.”

OK. I’ll amend the statement. No one other than a nitwit or an ideologue would say that Lehman should have been allowed to fail. Heck, even Bernake has come to this conclusion. He now says he would have done something had he had the power. If you think otherwise you’ll have to explain the benefit of the failure and how that benefit outweighed the cost of triggering a financial meltdown.

In any event, this leads to an interesting question: How many Nobel Prize winners does it take to convince an ideologue that they’re out to lunch? My guess is that it doesn’t matter. Faith trumps facts.

#69 Statik – guesses on car sales

Yeah you missed by a mile. It’s why I don’t guess — I’d miss by two.

Bad day for car sales but stock prices are slightly up. Wonder why? FWIW, with respect to your earlier post, I think the hearings were delayed for the UAW meeting, though the UAW may have decided they needed the meeting because the votes might otherwise not be there. To some extent this is all good. I’d like to see their collective feet (management/union) held to the fire so they come up with something workable for the longer term.

Side Note: Seems like the GM board has finally figured out that Wagoner may not be the guy for the job. Wonder what took them so long?

(Quote)
ziv Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:02 pm

Right Lane Cruiser, to follow up on your point, Ford didn’t actually pay a dime for the 21 patents that Toyota is allowing them to use, apparently the two firms swapped patent use, 21 Toyota patents can be used by Ford on their hybrids, and 21 Ford patents can be used by Toyota on their diesels and on fuel injection systems. Toyota has consistently asserted that Ford developed their own tech, but that it was close enough to make it worth while to cover themselves legally.
One other thing, these agreements were made in 2004, and the new GenII Ford hybrid system may not be using the Toyota patents at all. I read an autoblog article that implied that, but I can’t find any real info regarding the patent protocol and the GenII system.
My guess is that Ford and Toyota will continue the patent sharing in the forseeable future.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:07 pm

#61 N. Riley – “I hope we will see further improvements year after year in all the hybrid vehicles produced by GM, Ford and, one day, Chrysler.”

Given that you’re talking about parallel hybrids, I’d argue that this would be the wrong approach. Parallel hybrid technology is a dead end because it offers limited improvements, even with plugs and larger battery packs. There is just so much you can do when you start with an ICE and add a battery.

GM’s approach, though seeming ridiculous (the hybrid Escalade), actually make sense. They’re taking large vehicles which are just too large for the E-REV platform and making them as parallel hybrids. Then they’re taking cars which are small enough for the E-REV platform and making them as E-REVs. Makes a lot of sense, particularly when the battery technology should advance quickly enough to make E-REV suitable for cars the size of the Malibu.

Just a different perspective.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:12 pm

WSJ has edited their breaking story on Ford’s plan…added a bunch and taken out some details…like the part about them forecasting future sales.

Apparently, they also have several ‘forward’ looking scenarios based on NA sales estimates (between 12.5 and 14.5 million units)…none of which are anywhere close to current annualized levels

It does say they have 30 billion left in liquidity after Q3, so they are in no short term danger of C11.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122823078705672467.html?mod=yahoo_hs&ru=yahoo

(Quote)
Casey Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:15 pm

I’m not that far away from giving the bailout (loan) but…. I still think the chapter 11 is the only way we can get the volt, there’s too much waste in management and way too much with the UAW and not enough quality in the cars and too much quantity in diversity

Rick Wagoner said, no one will buy a car from a bankrupt company, I say, whooh!! nobody’s buyin em anyway!!!

I don’t see how but I hope the plans they submit will be succinct.

NO PLUG NO SALE, LJGTVWOTR, (my house)=D~~~~~(my volt)

Stop buying new gas cars, make them build EVs

(Quote)
Rebecca Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:15 pm

OK. I’ll amend the statement. No one other than a nitwit or an ideologue would say that Lehman should have been allowed to fail.

==============

Ah yes, because obviously no one could disagree with you without being a nitwit or an ideologue.

I don’t think bailing out Lehman would have prevented this crisis. I don’t think the 700B bailout should have happened, either (at least not without far stricter rules on how that money had to be used). Throwing money at a problem is not the best way to fix it. You have to address the root of the problem. And you have to take action to try and prevent the problem from occurring again.

I don’t object to treating the symptoms, really, but I don’t think this is the most effective way to do so, and certainly don’t approve of not addressing the root cause as well. Or of the “the sky is falling” and you must give money attitude with no questions asked and no demands made that is so frequently expressed.

========
n any event, this leads to an interesting question: How many Nobel Prize winners does it take to convince an ideologue that they’re out to lunch? My guess is that it doesn’t matter. Faith trumps facts.
========
Not an ideologue. I was supportive of the first efforts before Lehman. But it was going too far, IMO.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Honda is out with sales -31%

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — Honda Motor Co. said Tuesday November U.S. sales fell 31.6% to 76,233 vehicles from 111,431 a year ago. Honda brand sales slid 30.6% to 68,345 units while Acura division sales tumbled 38.9% to 7,888. Only the Pilot model showed an increase in sales, rising 4.5% to 5,601

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7b781B662B-73E0-433F-8EC3-B43692D19B18%7d&siteid=yhoof2

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:27 pm

#49 Morgan Says: “I would prefer to see the Congress held to the fire a little bit as well. Specifically I would like to see the Big Three put in their bailout that the models currently produced in Europe would be deemed as meeting US Safety and Environmental standards.”
————————————————————————————–
Yes, I think you may be onto something.

In particular, I’ve heard U.S. emission standards are based on emissions per gallon, whereas European standards are based on emissions per mile. If this is true, a high mileage cars have no advantage in U.S. emissions standards.

This seems backward to me. Most people in the U.S. seem to drive about the same amount regardless of their mileage. Gas guzzling cars and SUVs produce more emissions, so they should have more emission control systems. High mileage cars produce less emissions, so they should be able to get by with less emission control.

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:27 pm

#65 JLS Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Okay folks, common sense—instead of the government opening it’s checkbook that’s already in the red–why don’t the execs open theirs? Seriously do these folks really need to be making 7-8 figure salaries? Just like Fannie and Freddie—who really needs to make $100Million a year. These execs make too much money–trickle it down.
———————————-

Ford CEO now says he will work $1/year

(Quote)
Anthony BC Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Gsned57 – Thanks for making me laugh so hard this morning!

Oh Detroit, more mini coopers please!

The comment @ 7:20 will happen, it’s just a matter of time…

Casey 79 – Stop buying new gas cars, make them build EVs, YES !!!

(Quote)
Mike Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:48 pm

9. Eco

So your 29,000 dollar car was worth 580 dollars after 7 years? Sorry hard to believe. What was the make and model? Or do you have to look that up too

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:57 pm

GM numbers out -41%

SAN FRANCISCO said Tuesday that U.S. November light vehicle sales dropped 41.3% to 153,404 vehicles from 261,273 a year ago. Chevrolet was the least hit division with U.S. November sales down 36.9% to 95,756 vehicles, and Hummer sales dropped the most with sales down 63.9% to 1,454 vehicles from a year ago. Total U.S. November car sales at GM fell 44.1% to 58,786 units from last year

(Quote)
JEC Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:57 pm

#67 statik Says:
November 20th, 2008 at 4:06 pm

Good time to take a stab at amount they probably will request don’t you think? Not going to have much else to talk about from here on out for awhile. This is of course just a WAG with nothing to back it up…just spit-balling for laughs.

GM: 11-12 billion
Ford: 9-10 billion
Chrysler: 7 billion

=============================================
Did I miss something? When I watched CSPAN during the grilling of the big 3, a senator (I think Bob Corker?) demanded that each of them spill the beans on how much they wanted from the $25 billion. Originally, the big 3 said they would not reveal how much each was asking for, but Corker forced the issue, and made them fess up. I do not remember all the numbers, but I know Wagoner said 10-12 billion.

So, Statik, did you “steal” these numbers from the grilling, or are these your own?

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:09 pm

#75 DonC asks,

In any event, this leads to an interesting question: How many Nobel Prize winners does it take to convince an ideologue that they’re out to lunch?

———–
I love that question.
Here is my answer. None. It is impossible to convince an ideologue that he is wrong and/or to see and understand another point of view.
An ideologue is an extremist. Extremists serve their own interests.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:09 pm

#87 JEC

#67 statik Says:
November 20th, 2008 at 4:06 pm

Good time to take a stab at amount they probably will request don’t you think? Not going to have much else to talk about from here on out for awhile. This is of course just a WAG with nothing to back it up…just spit-balling for laughs.

GM: 11-12 billion
Ford: 9-10 billion
Chrysler: 7 billion

=============================================
Did I miss something? When I watched CSPAN during the grilling of the big 3, a senator (I think Bob Corker?) demanded that each of them spill the beans on how much they wanted from the $25 billion. Originally, the big 3 said they would not reveal how much each was asking for, but Corker forced the issue, and made them fess up. I do not remember all the numbers, but I know Wagoner said 10-12 billion.

So, Statik, did you “steal” these numbers from the grilling, or are these your own?
=====================

I didn’t watch the hearings at all actually.

Now you just mentioned that Wagoner said he was shooting for 10-12, I googled it…and see that you are right, they did come forward with numbers before I guessed…so you have to take my word for it I guess. (I wouldn’t though…I’m shady like that)

The link I went to said, GM asked for 10-11, Ford 8 and Chrysler 7. So my guess (after the fact) only got Chrysler right.

Although, Ford actually asked for a extra billion from what they stated, which was inline with my guess….so 2 for 3, lol. I don’t think it was any big stretch to get to those numbers.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:13 pm

I would be surprised if the Democrats in congress did not vote for the “loan” in very high percentages. On the other side, I would be surprised if the Republicans in congress did not vote against the “loan” in very very high percentages. Most Republicans, at heart, are against all of the “bail-outs”, but got suckered into the first one because it was election time and they were afraid of beign cast as the party who caused a complete financial melt-down. They are now in the same position with respect to the loss of jobs countrywide that the Democrats are particularly interested in saving primarily because most of them are union jobs and we know how closely tied to that cash cow the Democrats are. I really don’t have a sense for how the Republicans will vote. A lot depends on the structure of the loan and the plans put forth by the auto companies. The Democrats don’t really care what details are in the plans, they will use them as cover to vote yes on the “loans”. They are in a must vote yes situation. They can’t afford to lose that much cash because of the loss of millions of jobs. Believe me, they are more interested in their goals than they are in saving a piece of American industry. If they could save the unions while throwing the auto companies to the wolves, they would do it in a flash. The interesting thing to watch is the Republicans. What will be their decision and how will they justify either a yes or no vote?

(Quote)
MarkinWI Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:15 pm

November sales numbers were posted earlier today. GM down 41%. Before people get too down on them, one of the better performers was Ford, down 30%. Toyota was down nearly 34%. Porsche was off by nearly 50%. All numbers are compared to last November.

N Riley – No offense, but no mystery (or interest) in what the Republicans will do here. The Fox sound machine has been blaming the unions first (like many here). I saw and interview with an R Senator from GA, where he said point blank, unions have given money to Democrats, so why would we want to help them? Whatever the reality is, Republicans will define this as an anti-union vote, and the majority of Republicans will vote accordingly. Reality is not so simple. I wish politics were not so simple. The real question is, will Bush veto it?

(Quote)
Matt from Mich Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:16 pm

GM sales down 41%. Ouch!

(Quote)
Mitch Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:16 pm

asey

“I say, whooh!! nobody’s buyin em anyway!!!”

Last year GM sold more vehicles than anyone..and no one is buying them?

Its not sales so much as cost particularly legacy costs and TOTAL compensation to execs…

Most execs are below 3 million, but their TOTAL comp is like 45 Million.

At the start of the century (2000) GM shares were like $80.00..Gm was well managed really, and the 1990’s were great years…

You can’t tell someone that..hey your shares are up, you are making HUGE profits on trucks and SUV’s..you should relly make small econoboxes now before the bubble bursts… cuz in 10 years in MIGHT be a different world

Don’t really think it will happen..and it didn’t

would you change from a long prosperous run to small return products?

GM IS however investing in many technologies, and will be very successful again I think.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:21 pm

#93 Mitch says,

Mitch, with GM currently being off by 41% this month, and all others are off as well, I don’t think many people are buying any cars.

But I have to say that I would buy a car from a bankrupt car company.
If GM files Chapter 11, I only see that as a good thing for the company in the long run.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:28 pm

#91 MarkinWI

November sales numbers were posted earlier today. GM down 41%. Before people get too down on them, one of the better performers was Ford, down 30%. Toyota was down nearly 34%. Porsche was off by nearly 50%. All numbers are compared to last November.
——————-
I demand you read my posts, hehe.

/just kidding

(Quote)
MarkinWI Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Statik @#95 – I always read your posts.

(Quote)
Schmeltz Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:37 pm

I’ve said on this site before, and a few others here have echoed the same sentiment in terms of brands that should get the axe, in the world of Arm-chair Auto Executives, I think a viable future GM would look something like:

Chevrolet, Cadillac, Saturn. Axe all of the rest. Why? Primarily, the “axed” divisions, i.e. Saab, Hummer, Buick, Pontiac, and GMC represent approximately 25% of GM’s total sales. These divisions are heavily redundant of GM’s power brands, and therefore steal not only sales, but also financial resources and advertising money that could be better used to support stronger divisions like Chevrolet and programs like the Volt. Why Chevrolet/Cadillac/Saturn as the survivors?

Chevrolet: bread and butter of GM’s business, with the rightful lion’s share of sales. Absolute no brainer.

Cadillac: luxury market. Once again, no brainer.

Saturn: Saturn dealers are already stand alone locations. They have revamped their line-up with classy European flavored vehicles sporting some good fuel efficiency offerings. I would like to see the Saturn Vue Plug-in come to fruition as well.

If GM could trim down to a lean, mean, tri-brand company, with an affordable work force, top notch quality, low to no debt, and cars like the Volt on the forefront of their product initiative, GM would be a formidable force to be reckoned with–IMO.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Now, Rebecca, I don’t think either DonC or Rashiid were inferring you were a ideologue. I think they were speaking in general. What you said seems pretty well founded and middle of the road.

(Quote)
M1EK Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:53 pm

“would you change from a long prosperous run to small return products?”

YES. Oil was never going to be cheap forever. Toyota and Honda figured this out (investing guzzler profits into hybrid R&D). So did Ford, even (their hybrid system actually uses some of the last government R&D spending on PNGV).

GM sold SUVs and just spent the money on lining their own pockets and on dividends – and now want our money to replace it. No sale.

(Quote)
Bob McGovern Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Jeff M:
521 miles.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:55 pm

#93 Mitch

“At the start of the century (2000) GM shares were like $80.00..Gm was well managed really, and the 1990’s were great years…”

—————-

Sorry, Mitch, but 2000 was the end of a century. Year 2001 was the beginning of the 21st century. Not that this really matters to what you said.

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:58 pm

statik Says:

GM numbers out -41%

————-

What was the increase from last month though .. i’m too lazy to look it up.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:02 pm

Rebecca, I do apologize. After reading N. Riley’s post at #98, I realized that you might think I was calling you an ideologue. Please be assured that I wasn’t. I just wanted to answer DonC’s question.

Thanks, N. Riley for that heads-up.

(Quote)
Cindy Hillendale Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:05 pm

I am so tired of Toyota

Toyota is a big PR trash machine

GM had a prius in 1969

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/09/priustoric—-g.html

All MY GM vehicles were amazing. I love my fords too.

My toyota crolla had one valve fail and the transmission burn up after 112k.

Something my american cars never did.

I hope GM makes it because I dont want to be forced to buy a Crapota.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:06 pm

#97 Schmeltz

I have echoed those sentiments a number of times. When I saw Saturn mentioned as a possible division up for sale this week, it was quite a surprise. GM has a lot of legacy with the Buick name, I know, and it would be hard to put it down. But, sometimes you just got to do it. There is nothing in the Buick line that is not echoed in the Chevrolet line or that could not be created very quickly. The Buick Lucerne is the only car in that stable that really stands out and it can be duplicated by the Chevy Impala with very little trouble. Or bring the Lucerne brand into Chevrolet.

Saturn is such a unique opportunity for GM to improve their fuel efficiency message. They should work very hard at making that brand as much of their “green” car line-up as possible. If you don’t sell Saturn, Chevrolet can take over the Saturn line leaving only Chevrolet and Cadillac brands. I just would not keep Buick or Pontiac. Hummer, of course, is a given. At best, if they could sell Saturn outright, since they are kind of a stand alone division now, GM could trim down to just Chevrolet and Cadillac. That would be the very leanest they could achieve.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:08 pm

#102 kdawg

statik Says:
GM numbers out -41%
————-
What was the increase from last month though .. i’m too lazy to look it up.
====================================================

Total sales:
168,719 October 2008
153,404 November 2008

Percentage wise it was -45% in October to -41% in November…so I guess it depends on how you look at it. I’d call it a draw, each progressive month is a easier month to compete against the similar month from a year ago.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:18 pm

#99 M1Ek

“Toyota and Honda figured this out (investing guzzler profits into hybrid R&D).”

——————

I get really tired of seeing statements like this. You would think both Toyota and Honda had some gift at future sight. They don’t. They came from a small car environment. The Japanese did not have large consumer cars and trucks. They came onto our shores with small cars and trucks and their future sight did not stop either, especially Toyota, from investing in much larger cars and trucks after they had established themselves as the leading small car and truck market leaders. They had no fore sight. They wanted to start making and selling large cars, pickups and SUVs just like Detroit was doing. And they did start doing it. Both got caught by the same high price for gasoline and diesel and by their gas guzzler big cars, pickups and SUVs. Just in much smaller numbers than Detroit plus they had their small cars and trucks to fall back on. Let me tell you, some of the worst gas mileage I have gotten is in Toyota and Nissan small trucks. The Japanese are not magicians. They just had not had time to get more into larger vehicles before everything smashed that market. Just drive by a local Toyota dealership and look at the large vehicles on the lots. Some with $12,000 and more off trying to sell them.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Apparently I inverted GM and Chrysler on my guesses:

Chrysler numbers out: -47%

NEW YORK (AP) — Chrysler says its November U.S. sales plunged 47 percent, blaming a slumping industrywide demand and a planned drop in fleet sales. The drop announced Tuesday includes a 59 percent decrease in demand for cars and 42 percent decline in truck sales.

Excluding fleet sales, the Auburn Hills, Mich.-based automaker says its November sales fell 36 percent.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081202/auto_sales.html?.v=19

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:30 pm

#103 Rashiid Amul

I am always looking out for one of the good guys. I do tend to step on some toes, myself. Like I just did with M1EK. I may have gone a little overboard with my comment. It really wasn’t directed at exactly what he said as much as what his statement implied about the Japanese auto industry. Sorry, M1EK…..They are a great auto industry, those Japanese companies, but not any better in many ways than poor little old Detroit.

(Quote)
M1EK Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:36 pm

N. Riley, that’s a load of crap – our government GAVE a bunch of money to the Big 3 to develop fuel efficient cars (PNGV) and they STILL wouldn’t do it (with the exception of Ford).

Yes, there is a huge difference between the product mix sold in the US by Toyota and Honda versus the Detroit guys. And no, it’s not just because they sell small cars at home – it’s because GM in particular just hated selling small cars to those who wanted to buy them, and it showed.

(To those who claim it’s the perception gap, be aware that guys like me get to try out GM vehicles every time we travel on business. This year, I’ve ‘enjoyed’ both the Aveo and the Cobalt, as well as a G6).

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:37 pm

#104 Cindy Hillendale

Now that explains where Toyota really got the idea for the Prius. I knew they didn’t come up with it out of the blue. That is not like them. They usually wait for someone else to do the inventing then they take the idea and work on it and work on it. They then release it and WOW! the press just falls over for them like they have some inner sight Detroit doesn’t have. Makes me sick!!!! And I like Japanese vehicles, too. But asking the press and the public to be fair and use their heads to figure our how something came about is pretty silly these days.

(Quote)
George Washington Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:43 pm

These auto companies have clearly blown a head gasket. Their engine (aka business model) is broken. It should not be the taxpayer’s problem. Let them drown in their own creation. Blaming this on the overall economy is a diversion, the Big 3 have been slowing sinking for years and the state of the economy just helped to highlight how bad they have been mismanaged.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:50 pm

#110 M1EK

“(To those who claim it’s the perception gap, be aware that guys like me get to try out GM vehicles every time we travel on business. This year, I’ve ‘enjoyed’ both the Aveo and the Cobalt, as well as a G6).”

_______________

Does that mean you found those American cars wanting? Maybe miserable failures at trying to function like a vehicle? I have had some good American made cars over my life time. I have also had some not so great ones from German and Japanese manufacturers. I have never purchased a new American made truck or car that turned out bad. The same can be generally said for the Japanese vehicles I have purchased. One German vehicle, which I will not name, was OK for a few years, but did not hold up very good after those first few years. The German brand was during the same 1980’s when Detroit was turning our less than desirable vehicles.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:05 pm

#112 George Washington

Can’t disagree with the state of things as we find them in Detroit. There were a number of factors causing some of the problems they find themselves in now. The root causes have been stated over and over in this particular subject today and in other subjects posted other days.

So, what would happen if GM failed? How much time and taxpayer money would it take to “recover” from a failure. It will be a big failure because as GM goes certainly Chrysler goes and probably Ford. One, two or three auto companies fail followed by how many suppliers and how many other affiliated companies. It boggles the mind to think about it. I am close to retirement. I moved my 401(k) from stock to cash this summer before the crash because I saw enough to be afraid of the market. I suggested the same to many of my co-workers, but to date I am the only one to have done that. Now, I recommend to them that they must ride it out because they can’t afford to lock in their losses. If we don’t “invest” in GM, Ford and Chrysler we “lock” in our losses. Losses that will take more than a decade to recover from. America may never recover the manufacturing base we will lose. Sure, we will still have the foreign owned auto companies manufacturing vehicles. That is something, I guess. But, is that what you really want to see happen? OK, if you believe strongly in that idea, write, call or email your congressman or senator. Better yet, if he or she is a Democrat, save your energy. They can not vote against the “bail-out/loan”. Better contact a Republican representative or senator and voice your opinion as an American taxpayer (you are, right?). Maybe, just maybe, you will get your wish. Sometimes wishes do come true. They just don’t always have happy endings.

(Quote)
M1EK Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:08 pm

“I have never purchased a new American made truck or car that turned out bad”

Neither have I, because I’ve avoided American cars after GM starved Saturn (my ‘92 SL2 was a very nice car), although I had plenty of opportunities to try them out at the rental counter (and the CR rankings didn’t hurt, of course). And from the contrary perspective, I’d actually consider a Hyundai after being pleasantly surprised with one I rented a few years ago.

You’re setting off my ’shill’ detector something fierce. Or you’re an upper midwesterner with little exposure to the rest of the country. Most folks under 60 outside the midwest don’t seriously consider GM cars these days.

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:12 pm

Here’s Ford’s plan.
http://media.ford.com/images/10031/Ford_Motor_Company_Business_Plan.pdf

Anyone get a hold of GM’s?

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:21 pm

If GM can create a plan for long-term viability….wouldn’t investors buy their stock? So if the only people who believe your plan is the gov’t, doesn’t that suggest that someone is getting fleeced?

(Quote)
DonC Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:24 pm

#90 N. Riley – “Most Republicans, at heart, are against all of the “bail-outs”, but got suckered into the first one because it was election time and they were afraid of beign cast as the party who caused a complete financial melt-down.”

I think everyone is at heart against bail outs. It’s not something you want to do. On the other hand, you have to be smart enough to understand that these are not normal times. Certainly most Republican economists have figured this out. Though there are policy disputes about what specific types of intervention are best, there is no fundamental lack of consensus on the need for intervention. From Marty Feldstein, Reagan’s chief economist, to Alan Blinder, Clinton’s chief economist, to Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, to Bernake, to free market economists like Summers and Geithner, everyone understands that the government has to act to avoid a winter as long and as cold as it is avoidable. (Even the economists that appear on Fox News have figured this out).

In direct opposition are some members of the Republican party who are adept at playing to the ideologues best represented by talk radio. These are the same guys who advocated for removing and not enforcing regulations based on the theory that markets are self organizing and regulating, and, now, after that approach has resulted in ruin, they want to throw rocks at the people actually trying to clean up their mess.

That may get them a few votes in some places in the short run, but in the long run it leads nowhere, as evidenced by the fact that voters with advanced degrees supported Obama over John McCain by almost 20% — the largest number ever recorded.

Today seems eerily like a replay of the 30s, when Republicans argued that the best action was no action whereas the Democrats acted, which ensured Democratic majorities for fifty years. The problem here is that if Republicans don’t stop whining and start helping they will soon become even more of an minority. As it is, by avoiding responsibility for their rather obvious mistakes and failures by concocting crazy arguments that the financial meltdown was caused by too much regulation, combined with an apparent refusal to support others trying to fix things, has placed the party dangerously close to irrelevancy.

(Quote)
RB Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:26 pm

#69 statik said

“You were right RB, I totally blew Toyota, ’saved by zero’ did nothing for them it looks like.
Toyota – 33%”
======================================

I made your Toyota figure worse because of hearing people around me talk. They are in a pessimistic mood and not inclined toward any car purchase right now, somewhat across the board and beyond normal price considerations. It will not last forever. Spring will come.

(Quote)
wwskinn3 Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:29 pm

#50 Statik says: “. . . I’m not worried though. I trust my esteemed congressman to be able to see the true long-term viability of the automakers, even if self-interested investors can not. Oh ye of little faith”

What state are you from that you have a congressman who can see farther than how much money he can give away this week? Isn’t that what they do – give away money?

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:30 pm

I’ve lived long enough to hear many “the end is near” arguments. 99% never happen. The idea that failing to get a bailout is going to destroy 3 milion jobs sounds an awful lot like “the sky is falling.”

(Quote)
OhmExcited Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:31 pm

Don’t hold your breath for a Ford electric vehicle:

——————

[quote]
Sustainability and Electrification Strategy. Ford’s sustainability plan will achieve
continuous and substantial improvement in fuel economy and a corresponding reduction
in CO2 through affordable technology in high volume. Ford’s plan is to make affordable
fuel efficiency available to millions of consumers.
Our three-phased approach – with near-term,
medium-term and long-term advanced
technologies and products – begins now with
advanced internal combustion engine and
transmission technologies, such as our
EcoBoost engines going into production on
several vehicles in 2009. The next major step in
Ford’s plan is to increase over time the volume
of electrified vehicles, as battery costs improve
and as the transition from Hybrids to Plug-in
Hybrids to Battery Electric Vehicles occurs. (See Appendix, Slide 4.)
Next month at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, we will
discuss in detail Ford’s accelerated vehicle electrification plan, which includes bringing
to market by 2012 a family of hybrids, plug-in hybrids and battery electric vehicles. Our
work will include partnering with battery and powertrain systems suppliers to deliver a
full battery electric vehicle (BEV) in a van-type vehicle for commercial fleet use in 2010
and a BEV sedan in 2011. We will develop these vehicles in a manner that enables us
to reduce costs and ultimately makes battery electric powered vehicles more affordable
for consumers.
Our plan also includes building on our competence in hybrid vehicles, as
demonstrated by the industry-leading fuel economy of the Ford Escape and Ford Fusion
hybrids. We are now developing our next generation full hybrid technology, which
includes plug-in capability, for vehicles in 2012 and beyond. We are targeting a
substantial increase in hybrid volume through a greater than 30% reduction in cost,
installation of hybrid capability in global platforms and hybrid vehicles that are uniquely
styled.

[b]We cannot, however, accomplish significant electrification by ourselves. The
2007 Energy Independence and Security Act requires American-developed
breakthroughs in high-power energy batteries (e.g.
lithium ion). In order to make significant progress in
electrification, Ford supports establishing a U.S.
public/private partnership to accelerate the
development of this capability, including supporting
infrastructure, within the United States.[/b]
[/quote]

(Quote)
DonC Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:31 pm

#99 M1EK – “Toyota and Honda figured this out (investing guzzler profits into hybrid R&D).”

This isn’t really true. No problem with Honda. It did stick with its mission of producing small efficient cars (except mine … LOL). But Toyota? Aren’t they the ones that invested big bucks in expanding into new lines of trucks and SUVs just in time for the market to turn away from these types of vehicles? Why do you think their numbers are down even with their 0% financing?

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:32 pm

#120 wwskinn3

Sarcasm my friend.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:36 pm

#115 M1EK

“You’re setting off my ’shill’ detector something fierce. Or you’re an upper midwesterner with little exposure to the rest of the country. Most folks under 60 outside the midwest don’t seriously consider GM cars these days.”

______________

No, I am from the South, Mississippi to be exact. I am 64 and have traveled around this country and a good part of the world. I come from a large family (3 brothers, 1 sister and a ton of cousins). This large family purchases a lot of vehicles from all over the spectrum. I have seen about all of them. Some I would never have purchased and some I wish I had. I have had pretty good luck with most of my vehicles and I tend to keep them for 10 – 15 years on average. I do maintain them pretty good and I believe that always helps whether it is an American or foreign vehicle.

I do believe the American auto companies can recover and produce much better vehicles, if we help them along in their time of need. I don’t want to help. My instincts are to let them fail, but at what cost?

I don’t work for any company dealing with automobiles in anyway except gasoline and diesel. I do work for a small oil company and we do buy and re-sell fuel. I manage their computer facility which at one time served more than a dozen locations from our central site. Now, we are in the process of slowly selling off facilities and property and there are only two remote locations attached through the internet to our central computer (an IBM AS/400). I designed and wrote most of the software we run on the computer and it does a full range of applications. The whole company is heavily dependent on computer input.

No, I am not a “shill”. Just an average guy who is interested in automobiles and have had a good number of them. I want to see our auto industry be successful again. But, if they don’t change, I would not cry if they failed. One last chance is all I am willing to give them. They deserve it, this time.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:37 pm

#121 Cautious Fan – The idea that failing to get a bailout is going to destroy 3 milion jobs sounds an awful lot like “the sky is falling.”

Sometimes the wolf is really coming. Or, if you prefer, sometimes people who are paranoid are right.

I agree with you that three million jobs is exaggerated. But at the moment losing one million would be a complete disaster.

Look, when someone like Warren Buffet, who has been around for a while, says this is Pearl Harbor, you might want to start paying attention. At the moment we are in the longest period of economic decline since WWII and there is no end in sight. Basically this is a once in a lifetime event and dismissing it on grounds that “everything will be alright” is borderline crazy.

(Quote)
RB Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:43 pm

WSJ now says “GM is requesting a total of $18 billion in loans, $6 billion more than it said a few weeks ago, and needs an immediate injection of $4 billion to stay afloat until the end of the year. ”
===================================================

Note “$6 billion more than it said a few weeks ago” GM is not good at projections [better hire statik quick ] GM sounds like another Fannie Mae, AIG or Citi in terms of ever increasing billions urgently needed. If congress intends a serious rescue, they need to elevate to the $100b level, it seems, or more.

(Quote)
Casey Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:50 pm

#93 Mitch

I’m not to sure where you got your figures, but GM and the others have been losing money for years and I think GM had only a 41% last year, 41% is not much and it’s getting worse not better.

So when I say, Whoooh, nobody’s buyin em anyway, WHOOOH, NOBODY’S BUYIN EM ANYWAY

NO PLUG NO SALE, LJGTVWOTR, (my house)=D~~~~~(my volt)

don’t buy anymore new gas cars, make em make EVs

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:50 pm

statik Says:

Total sales:
168,719 October 2008
153,404 November 2008

————–

wow, so it was actually less vehicles in Nov. I had heard otherwise.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Most of the people quoted as calling for congress to approve a “loan or bail-out” to the automakers are investors. Warren Buffet, for one, is a very heavy investor. How much does he stand to lose if congress does not bail-out the financial community and the auto companies? I tend to take with a big grain of salt what some of these so-called experts want us as taxpayers to do. I am totally against bail-outs, but I can support a well structured loan. Problem is, congress gave out too much money to the likes of AIG without any strings and we, the taxpayers, will now have to pay the bill.

(Quote)
M1EK Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:59 pm

DonC, Toyota also created the home-run of hybrids, as well as a bunch of base-hits. You’re FUDding.

(Quote)
Cindy Hillendale Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:59 pm

Toyota is just a copy machine.

with a PR engine that is about to fail.

The problem with the copy machine when it runs out of toner you just have a mess to refill it.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:08 pm

No, M1EK, you are not reading your history of hybrid vehicle development. Toyota just copied and improved previous versions of hybrids that never made it to market. Cindy Hillendale has given us a good link to one example of where Toyota got the idea for the Prius.

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/09/priustoric—-g.html

Thanks, Cindy for the link. It was interesting and educational.

(Quote)
Len Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:10 pm

I do not think the bailouts have addressed the problem. We have just thrown 700B down the rabbit hole. IMO The mortgages that make up the funny paper are the problem, that and a 40 to one leverage and hedge funds selling stuff they don’t have, but like a poker player figuring no one will call them.

Bailing out GM is the same (money down a rabbit hole), without addressing the fundamental problems of the company, they will spend this money and just be back for more.

The Republicans behaved like drunken sailors. Now we can only hope the Democrats have learned from them not to do the same. I am not holding my breath.

(Quote)
blkstne Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:16 pm

#69 statik said

“You were right RB, I totally blew Toyota, ’saved by zero’ did nothing for them it looks like.
Toyota – 33%”
__________________________________
Even though Toyota did not sell as many cars as this time last year they still made about a 7 Billion DOLLAR Profit. Toyota/Honda is just making less Profit now days.

@Cindy Hillendale 104

My wife’s toyota(seqoiua) has NEVER had a promblem in the 5 years of ownership. I have own about 8 american cars(2 Blazers,fiero,Jeep wagoneer,daytona,grand am,mustang), and not one American car has gone five years without a major repair having to be done.

I love driving american cars but they have cost me a lot of money to own. My wife is always avaliable to pick me up in her toyota when i am stranded or dropping my car off at the shop.
I hope the VOLT has a better reliability record than my past and current American cars

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:16 pm

#120 wwskinn3 Says,

#50 Statik says: “. . . I’m not worried though. I trust my esteemed congressman to be able to see the true long-term viability of the automakers, even if self-interested investors can not. Oh ye of little faith”

What state are you from that you have a congressman who can see farther than how much money he can give away this week? Isn’t that what they do – give away money?
====================================

Thats not my quote, thats #63 cautious fan being sarcastic…as he said

/I just felt I had to re-iterate

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:16 pm

#126 DonC

I know it’s cliché, but 75 years ago we shed million of agriculture jobs with the dawn of the tractor. The jobs moved to Detroit, Wichita, etc, all without congress telling them to (amazing). And we’re better off today for it because they produced things of better value. But at the time, everyone lamented the decline of America, how we couldn’t survive without all these jobs, how agriculture was our backbone, yada yada. That’s why I think the sky isn’t falling. This seems too much like the same situation.

In regards to your previous post, in the Great Depression, FEDERAL mismanagment of the money supply and FEDERAL trade tariffs were significant contributors to the Depression. That’s roundly acknowledged. The benefit of FDR’s jobs program’s are hotly debated today, except for the fact that it did increase the money supply, though inefficiently.

I don’t understand why you suggest the gov’t had no involvement in this current crisis. The feds kept interest too low and congress encouraged subprime loans (yes even Republicans). Yes, investors made mistakes with their own money. Going forward, investors are incentivized to fix their mistakes, they don’t want to loose money again. Those who don’t learn go out of business. With the gov’t, we don’t get an EFFICIENT feedback loop.

Prove me wrong here. What additional regulation needs to be in place as a result of this.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:19 pm

#134 Len

The Republicans learned at the feet of the Democrats. The Democrats should be flattered. The Republicans were only trying to emulate the Democrats and got caught with their pants down around their knees.

If you hold your breath only one thing will happen. You will pass out. Don’t look for any spending cuts by the new congress. It ain’t gonna happen. The only thing that may slow some spending is their plans to spend even more than they already have bailing out more financial companies, etc.

(Quote)
Casey Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:19 pm

#134 Len

Does a bridge to nowhere sound familiar?

NPNS, NG,

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:22 pm

#127 RB

WSJ now says “GM is requesting a total of $18 billion in loans, $6 billion more than it said a few weeks ago, and needs an immediate injection of $4 billion to stay afloat until the end of the year. ”

Note “$6 billion more than it said a few weeks ago” GM is not good at projections [better hire statik quick ] GM sounds like another Fannie Mae, AIG or Citi in terms of ever increasing billions urgently needed. If congress intends a serious rescue, they need to elevate to the $100b level, it seems, or more.

=====================================

I nailed that one though. I said the full 12 billion would get them to mid March, and they have to come back hat in hand, lol.

Also, that they were completely out of cash right now and only the prospect of a big bag of money is keeping the creditors at bay, they are probably several billion under minimum level already. If this bailout thing stumbles…they will be bankrupt faster than even I can post the bad news.
—–
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081202/autos_gm_plan.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — General Motors says it needs $4 billion in government loans this month and a total of $12 billion by late March to keep operating. The troubled automaker says it plans to slash its numbers of workers, vehicle brands and plants by 2012.

General Motors Corp. would focus on 4 brands — Chevrolet, GMC, Buick and Cadillac. By 2012, the plan calls for 20,000 to 30,000 fewer workers, a reduction of nine facilities and 1,750 fewer dealers.

GM CEO Rick Wagoner is offering to work for a dollar a year and top executives will take major pay cuts.
————–

I’m not going to comment any further here, because I’m sure another thread will be along shortly.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:24 pm

Ok, bullet points on GM’s ‘watered down for public consumption’ press release and not the real gov’t version:

———

General Motors asked the U.S. government to save it from failure by extending $12 billion in loans and another $6 billion in credit as part of an unprecedented federal intervention into the struggling auto industry.

GM said it needs Congress to extend $4 billion in financing this month and provide the rest of the $12 billion by March. The remaining $6 billion would be available if a year-long recession in U.S. auto sales drops beyond GM’s now-lowered expectations Without the immediate $4 billion cash infusion, the top U.S. automaker faces the risk of failure, a senior executive said.

“The first $4 billion is crucial,” GM Chief Operating Officer Fritz Henderson said, adding, “There is no Plan B.”

Detroit’s automakers, making a second bid for $25 billion in funding, started presenting Congress with plans Tuesday to restructure their ailing companies and provide assurances that the funding will help them survive and thrive.

GM’s plan also called for:

Increased production of fuel-efficient vehicles and energy-saving technologies;
Rationalization of brands, models and retail outlets;
Reduced wage and benefit costs, including further reductions in executive compensation;
Significant capital structure restructuring;
Further consolidation in manufacturing operations.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/28015472

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:25 pm

Official GM media release:

http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewpressreldetail.do?domain=827&docid=50755

Volt mention:
“In addition, the Chevy Volt, which can travel up to 40 miles on electricity alone, is scheduled for production in 2010, and GM is planning other vehicles using Volt’s extended-range electric drivetrain”

———
“Pontiac will be a specialty brand with reduced product offerings within the Buick-Pontiac-GMC channel”
–translation, Pontiac is done–we ain’t making anything new for it and it is going to be grandfathered, but not so much that we are legally liable for anything

“GM will immediately undertake a global strategic review of the Saab brand”
–translation: we already tried to sell in quietly so we are going to put it in the ‘HUMMER’ allocation box now

“Balance Sheet Restructuring – Under the plan, GM would significantly reduce the debt currently carried on its balance sheet. GM plans to engage current lenders, bond holders and its unions to negotiate the needed changes”
–this is the part where we have a fancy daydream

“The plan calls for shared sacrifice, including further reduction in the number of executives and total compensation paid to senior leadership. For example, the chairman and CEO will reduce his salary to $1 per year. The plan also requires further changes in existing labor agreements, including job security provisions, paid time-off, and post-retirement health-care obligations. The common stock dividend will remain suspended during the life of the loans.”

–Wags makes a buck, but watch out pensioners and line workers we are coming for you…big time

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:32 pm

Thanks, Statik. You must have eight arms and three or four heads to keep getting this information to us as fast as you have been doing. And have I mentioned that you have been pretty well on the target all year with your projections? Oh well, we just bow to you and worship your comments. hehe……….. Keep them coming.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:34 pm

Oh yeah…at the very end of ‘the plan’ they say that after they do ALL those things, they need the industry to be at a annualized level of 12.5 to 13 million vehicles sold…or they are not solvent.

ie) They are not solvent regardless of what they do…now give us our money

(The extra 6 billion dollar loan is just silly. They can’t pass that now, they only have 25 billion in the kitty total…thats a ‘Obama’ issue in February).

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:39 pm

#143 N Riley

Thanks, Statik. You must have eight arms and three or four heads to keep getting this information to us as fast as you have been doing. And have I mentioned that you have been pretty well on the target all year with your projections?

————————-

Hehe, yeah, I just happened to be sitting at the computer when my ‘inbox’ popped up with the GM release.

(Quote)
M1EK Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:51 pm

N. Riley, you’re smoking crack. That’s revisionist history at its best – but even if it was 100% correct, you’re basing your argument on the fact that Toyota was smart enough to make something out of past research, while GM and Chrysler weren’t?

(Ford gets a pass because their hybrid system, although not produced in enough volume, is actually very good).

(Quote)
NZDavid Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:33 pm

Statik:

But those forward projections are CRITICAL. IE when they fall short (surprise) they all get to say “how could we know things would be so bad?”

Then GM et al. get to ask for more money. (another 25B please (cough, cough.)) Well its worked for AIG so far!

/ Dripping with sarcasm.

(Quote)
NZDavid Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:41 pm

146 M1EK, the fact is, Toyota did make something and GM and Chrysler didn’t & Honda screwed it up.

The fact is, people who buy hybrid vehicles want to be seen for buying them. So the Insight failed because the hybrid version looked the same as the conventional version, just cost more. For this reason GM should scrap the conventional Malibou and only sell the Hybrid version.

(Quote)
wwskinn3 Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:51 pm

124. Cautious Fan Says to #120 wwskinn3 – “Sarcasm my friend.”

You’re right. Out of place here. My apologies for not trusting our politicians to keep us out of bankruptcy as well.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:03 am

The Volt will get much better milage than 100mpg. Using a typical yearly driving patern of:
• 30 days at 8 miles per day
• 50 days at 16 miles per day
• 240 days at 30 miles per day
• 30 days at 60 miles per day
• 3 days at 450 miles per day
_______________________________________

Where did those numbers come from?

11,390 miles per year is a strange value.

(Quote)
M1EK Says:
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:36 am

“The fact is, people who buy hybrid vehicles want to be seen for buying them. So the Insight failed because the hybrid version looked the same as the conventional version, just cost more. For this reason GM should scrap the conventional Malibou and only sell the Hybrid version.”

More lies and FUD. At least get your names straight next time.

The Prius whooped the tar out of the CIVIC HYBRID because it’s bigger, much more useful, and gets better mileage. The Civic Hybrid is a compact car with a short trunk and a rear seat that can’t even fold down. The Prius is a midsize with a hatch. Huge difference in both rear leg room and in cargo space (seat folds down too).

The INSIGHT looked radically different, got great mileage, but wasn’t very useful, and sold accordingly (worse than the Civic Hybrid).

(Quote)

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009
November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]
srschrier
New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009
From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]
srschrier
Th!nk picks Indiana for U.S. factory November 18, 2009
Th!nk picks Indiana for U.S. factory: _Link_ (http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1038564_thnk-picks-indiana-for-u-s-factory) […]
Jason M. Hendler
FIRST ALL-ELECTRIC APTERA 2e PUSHED BACK TO 2010 November 18, 2009
FIRST ALL-ELECTRIC APTERA 2e PUSHED BACK TO 2010: _Link_... […]
Jason M. Hendler
Any news about the NiMH battery? November 18, 2009
Now that there are new owners of the patent, is there any indication that they will allow its use for electric cars? Like many others, I believe that... […]
Desertstraw
energy requirments of modern electric vehicles November 18, 2009
does anyone know any credible sources of information concerning the electricity requirements of modern electric vehicles per mile of travel and the... […]
crubkings
30% reduction November 18, 2009
The Belgian governement decided that if you buy a car with less then 60g/km emmision you get a 15% tax reduction and you can write it off for 100% if... […]
filiep

Detroit 3 Viability Plans Go To Congress Today: GM’s CEO Will Drive to DC in Hybrid Malibu

151 Responses to “Detroit 3 Viability Plans Go To Congress Today: GM’s CEO Will Drive to DC in Hybrid Malibu”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts