|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 22, 2008 2:53:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 22, 2008 11:00:37 GMT -5
Alot less now after Harper and McKay screwed over the shipyard and refused to give them the Navy/Coast Guard contracts. The screwing started long before Harper & McKay my friend. Long before. Yes ... and by both red and blue stripes ..... However, the Shipyard was told that the contracts were down to Vancouver and them. Now I am willing to bet that was to appease Newfoundlanders and labradorians and that the intent was to always go with Vancouver... but Vancouver than said they could not do it, they had too much work as it was. So the only option was Marystown. Then we hear that MacKay was overseas trying to see who could do these contracts - contracts that were publicly stated as being only Canadian options. Problem was there was a relatively unknown Newfoundland MHA in the group and overheard this talk ... and when he went public with this info , the contracts are now not going to get done .... Thats deliberate screwing ..... |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Nov 22, 2008 11:08:42 GMT -5
You don't think that several hundred thousand people on EI (which, generally speaking, costs $24k per person per year) wouldn't cost as much? Where do you get that $40k figure? And if Chapter XI is declared, then those 800,000 pensions get tossed over to the PBGC, which means the taxpayers are paying them out. If you'd like to know how much that will cost, then head on over here: www.pbgc.gov/workers-retirees/benefits-information/content/page789.htmlHmm. 800,000 people on pensions that range between $1k and $4k monthly. Releasing the Detroit Three of their obligations on that front will cost MUCH more than a bailout, and even several bailouts. So we force them into Chapter XI, put the onus on the taxpayer to pay the pensions and EI, and let those companies reap the profits from having low overhead costs to eventually make the same mistakes again. The point I'm putting across is that absolving the organization completely of pension obligations isn't a better solution, but something that would become some kind of pension partnership would be something to think about. I'm not saying that bailing them out is the best option, but it's not as cut-and-dried as you seem to suggest. You avoided the core of my argument in that post. There is NO WAY that GM can fund all their pernsion and health care obligations regardless of how many bailouts. So why start going inot the black hole? I recognize that, but handing those obligations all over to the taxpayer isn't a reasonable solution, either. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Nov 22, 2008 15:48:26 GMT -5
Ontario already lost 350,000 manufacturing jobs and the soup lines are still short (for now). I am not as callous as I am skeptical, actually, I am uber cynical of the "give us the money and we will change" BS the big three are spouting. Do you REALLY believe the union will take a 30% cut in pay/benefits and the pensioners a 50% pay cut for GM to survive? Or that they will produce cars that don't stop DEAD in the middle of the highway? And that's why I said the couple thousand (or hundred thousand or so - whatever) are really immaterial. So you're not callous, maybe I am - I don't really give a hairy rat's arse if a few people go broke and are forced to live on the streets (they won't - this is Canada - but anyways). A few people are nothing to me, and as I said the sad fact is that it happens all the time anyways. What I am concerned about, is the catastrophe that might follow a mass layoff of such a key part of the workforce. Removing a hundred or two hundred jobs here and there is no big thing - because as they leave they go out and some find work and that mitigates the numbers by the time the next cut. Let everyone go in a catastrophic collapse, and suddenly everything else is under a lot of strait. Do I think the big three will change if we give them money? Not unless we hold a gun to their head and force them (strings attached - remember?). But that doesn't change the fact that we can not afford to have the companies collapse either. It's a no-win situation - but I think the losses are smaller on one side than on the other. It won't change the situation, but maybe it will allow them to die a slow, natural death rather than a horrific crash. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 22, 2008 16:22:46 GMT -5
Do I think the big three will change if we give them money? I read an editorial in the paper the other day about the perceived attitude of entitlement the "Big Three" have .... The CEOs of the big three were summoned before Congress. They came expecting to hear the details of their stimulus package and then got the rug tore out from under them when one Senator asked a simple question, then followed up with two more: Raise your hand if you came to Washington on a commercial flight?Neither of them raised their hand. How did you come here?Private jets/planes. Raise you hand if there are plans to sell luxurious assests such as these planes?Not one hand was raised again .... So Congress asked them to go and formulate a plan ..... |
|
|
|
Post by Yossarian on Nov 22, 2008 22:51:46 GMT -5
Do I think the big three will change if we give them money? I read an editorial in the paper the other day about the perceived attitude of entitlement the "Big Three" have .... The CEOs of the big three were summoned before Congress. They came expecting to hear the details of their stimulus package and then got the rug tore out from under them when one Senator asked a simple question, then followed up with two more: Raise your hand if you came to Washington on a commercial flight?Neither of them raised their hand. How did you come here?Private jets/planes. Raise you hand if there are plans to sell luxurious assests such as these planes?Not one hand was raised again .... So Congress asked them to go and formulate a plan ..... That is extremely sad. You'd think that almost hitting the bottom of the barrel, would be a wake up call that the old way doesn't work anymore. That's what happens when you have a Harvard MBA running a car company. Cut brands, cut models, shut down plants and close dealerships, let engineers make the production and design decisions and let the accountants prepare the financial statements. In 5 years, people maybe might be interested in buying a Big 3 vehicle that isn't a pick-up truck or large SUV. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Nov 23, 2008 2:11:39 GMT -5
Exactly. The bottom line is that they just haven't produced a good reliable car to compete with the Japanese and Europeans (in some categories). They're getting better, but attitudes don't seem to have changed (like the Toronto AIG office that had a $150,000 party the night they got their bailout).
Tough love.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 23, 2008 10:42:46 GMT -5
Do I think the big three will change if we give them money? I read an editorial in the paper the other day about the perceived attitude of entitlement the "Big Three" have .... The CEOs of the big three were summoned before Congress. They came expecting to hear the details of their stimulus package and then got the rug tore out from under them when one Senator asked a simple question, then followed up with two more: Raise your hand if you came to Washington on a commercial flight?Neither of them raised their hand. How did you come here?Private jets/planes. Raise you hand if there are plans to sell luxurious assests such as these planes?Not one hand was raised again .... So Congress asked them to go and formulate a plan ..... Exactly. The bottom line is that they just haven't produced a good reliable car to compete with the Japanese and Europeans (in some categories). They're getting better, but attitudes don't seem to have changed (like the Toronto AIG office that had a $150,000 party the night they got their bailout). Tough love. I had to get back to this thread sometime and glad I did today ... absolutely incredible. For years now the North American car manufacturers have been focusing on the SUV and truck markets, while the Asian manufacturers were always making more fuel-efficient vehicles. With very few exceptions the NA companies never took that lead with any consistency. Dad used to ask me to count the amount of European and Asian vehicles at any one stop light. That led me to doing it while I was driving, sometimes a few times a week. After a while I simply stopped. I own a Tonka Truck Dodge Dakota and a Buick LaSabre. Both are very good on gas as far as NA vehicles go, especially the Buick. The Dakota has a 3.9 in it and I use it only when I have to. Mrs Dis will use it to go to work in because it's only a 5-km drive. However, the Buick is excellent on gas. On the highway I'll get 400 km to the first 1/2-tank. It's not as good on the second half, granted, but the key to it is smart driving. Keep your speed at 5-10 kms over the limit and you'll see the difference. One thing about this; Mrs Dis and I lived in Germany for five years and the Europeans loved to rub the 'big-car, truck' thing in our faces. It's true that we produced gas-guzzling vehicles for sure, but at the same time it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to produce highly-efficient fuel vehicles, like the Europeans do, only to have a recommended speed limit of 130 km/hr. That's what it was when I was over there back in the late-80's. Even the German driver's handbook stated that you were not to exceed the recommended 130-km speed limit, get this, if you were in a car unfamiliar to you.I don't know what the recommended speed limit is nowadays, but when we left the local policei were introducing their new Porches that were to be used in curtailing speeders. Large cars? SUVs and trucks? Or, being passed when you're doing 160 km/hr. We're all to blame in some way or another. As for the bailout ... I know it will flood the market with unemployed people, but I'd like my taxes to go somewhere else (other than the eventual payouts to EI benefits as well). I know, I know ... that's easy for me to say with me having a job and all ... but still ... what will the companies have learned with that new cash? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by The Habsome One on Nov 23, 2008 13:31:02 GMT -5
Exactly. The bottom line is that they just haven't produced a good reliable car to compete with the Japanese and Europeans (in some categories). They're getting better, but attitudes don't seem to have changed (like the Toronto AIG office that had a $150,000 party the night they got their bailout). That's a common misconception. European cars were given by far the worst reliability rating just a couple years ago, while American cars have narrowed the gap with Honda and Toyota. Korean company Hyundai actually surpassed the big two Japanese companies a few years ago. Remember the awful reputation Hyundai used to have? I swore I'd never buy one. But they turned it around and offered the longest warranties in North America. Now GM is offering even longer warranties. The difference in reliability between GM and the Japanese companies (minus less reliable Nissan and Mazda) is that all or most of Toyota and Honda models are reliable, where every year, some GM models are and some aren't. In like manner, some GM plants are efficient, while others aren't. Unfortunately, with the unions and today's economy, GM doesn't appear to have the flexibility to turn things around in time before running out of cash. Even in the face of company bankruptcy, the CAW and UAW are saying "no more concessions." I don't understand why they think they are entitled to so many benefits and high pay when there just isn't any more money to go around. In case you weren't aware, several GM vehicles won Car of the Year awards last year (e.g. Cadillac CTS, Chevy Silverado, Saturn VUE, Buick Enclave, etc). While relatively nobody is buying trucks anymore (vehicles that used to generate a lot of profit for GM, Ford, and Chrysler), other vehicles (such as two other award winners, Chevy Malibu and Pontiac Vibe) can't be produced fast enough to keep up with demand. By the way, did you know that the Pontiac Vibe and Toyota Matrix are basically the same car? |
|
|
|
Post by Yossarian on Nov 23, 2008 15:56:55 GMT -5
European cars were given by far the worst reliability rating just a couple years ago, while American cars have narrowed the gap with Honda and Toyota. Korean company Hyundai actually surpassed the big two Japanese companies a few years ago. Remember the awful reputation Hyundai used to have? I swore I'd never buy one. But they turned it around and offered the longest warranties in North America. Now GM is offering even longer warranties. The difference in reliability between GM and the Japanese companies (minus less reliable Nissan and Mazda) is that all or most of Toyota and Honda models are reliable, where every year, some GM models are and some aren't. In like manner, some GM plants are efficient, while others aren't. Unfortunately, with the unions and today's economy, GM doesn't appear to have the flexibility to turn things around in time before running out of cash. Even in the face of company bankruptcy, the CAW and UAW are saying "no more concessions." I don't understand why they think they are entitled to so many benefits and high pay when there just isn't any more money to go around. In case you weren't aware, several GM vehicles won Car of the Year awards last year (e.g. Cadillac CTS, Chevy Silverado, Saturn VUE, Buick Enclave, etc). While relatively nobody is buying trucks anymore (vehicles that used to generate a lot of profit for GM, Ford, and Chrysler), other vehicles (such as two other award winners, Chevy Malibu and Pontiac Vibe) can't be produced fast enough to keep up with demand. By the way, did you know that the Pontiac Vibe and Toyota Matrix are basically the same car? The Vibe/Matrix is a joint GM/Toyota venture. The Vibe is built at the NUUMI plant in California. GM went into business with Toyota to learn their lean manufacturing process. The power train is Toyota engineered (the engine is the Corolla engine on the base, and the modernized Celica engine on the GT); essentially a Toyota dressed as a Pontiac. Of the 2009 AJAC awards, the Vibe was the only Big 3 vehicle to win an award that isn't a pick up or a large SUV. What does that say? The new Malibu is definatly an improvement over previous generations. It is still not up to par to an Accord, Camry, Sonata, or in my view the class leading Altima. The key question is in 5 years, what is a Mailbu going to look like and be worth, compared to the others? The 4 cylinder still uses pathetic electronically power steering. GM has finally got the message an uses hydraulic assisted PS on the 6. Saturn is an interesting story. GM has just recently basically adapted the Opel technology for the Vue, Astra, and Aura. This is GM's European line, mostly engineered in Germany. Europe has a generally more sophisticated car buying public, and the driving conditions are generally harsher and more demanding. If they are forced to build better cars in Europe out of survival and competition, why wouldn't they in NA? These are the cars the marketing division should be pushing and wholly building in NA, but they are not. Likely because of the Euro design/build, they are more expensive to build (because of the US dollar/Euro exchange), they are not priced appropriately, and the profit margin doesn't make it worth it. The CTS is a solid car, and looks beautiful if you are into the angular lines. However, it is generally distributed through Pontiac/GMC/Cadillac channels. A friend purchased one from such a dealer in North Toronto, and the service he has received has been barely adequate. Compare that to the treatment you get when you buy a Lexus from their dealers, it isn't even close. Hyundai's new Genesis is also in the same price point, and apparently blows away all competition, and is miles ahead of where Lexus was when they entered into the luxary segment. The benchmark can't be good. It has to be class-leading. Small baby steps isn't good, when your survival is at stake. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 2, 2008 13:08:22 GMT -5
So Ford today pitched it's bailout plan to Congress today, which I thought was interesting. I wonder what others think: www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/12/02/ford-congress.htmlFrom the CBC Summary: -Ford wants $9,000,000,000 in loans -Ford has enough money to remain in business until the end of 2009. I presume next year's sales will determine beyond that. They do not want to have to take government funding if it can be avoided, but I presume they want to have the $9b on hand so that they can plan for the future. -Ford will sell its corporate aircraft, and cancel raises to salaried employees. -The CEO will work for $1 if the company takes government money. - Some blather about fuel efficiency and electric cars. So now the question is - what do you think? Personally - I like some of it, wish there was greater restrictions on the company etc. etc., but it's better than just sticking your hand out, which is what many thought would happen. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 2, 2008 13:19:03 GMT -5
Sounds like a little bit of humble pie. Certainly better than what was thought earlier.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 2, 2008 14:07:50 GMT -5
So Ford today pitched it's bailout plan to Congress today, which I thought was interesting. I wonder what others think: www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/12/02/ford-congress.htmlFrom the CBC Summary: -Ford wants $9,000,000,000 in loans -Ford has enough money to remain in business until the end of 2009. I presume next year's sales will determine beyond that. They do not want to have to take government funding if it can be avoided, but I presume they want to have the $9b on hand so that they can plan for the future. -Ford will sell its corporate aircraft, and cancel raises to salaried employees. -The CEO will work for $1 if the company takes government money. - Some blather about fuel efficiency and electric cars. So now the question is - what do you think? Personally - I like some of it, wish there was greater restrictions on the company etc. etc., but it's better than just sticking your hand out, which is what many thought would happen. The CEO will work for $1 huh ..... my first thought when I read that was... how much will he make in bonuses?EDIT: They plan to cancel management bonuses for 2009 .... what about 2008, 2010...? |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 2, 2008 14:11:43 GMT -5
So Ford today pitched it's bailout plan to Congress today, which I thought was interesting. I wonder what others think: www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/12/02/ford-congress.htmlFrom the CBC Summary: -Ford wants $9,000,000,000 in loans -Ford has enough money to remain in business until the end of 2009. I presume next year's sales will determine beyond that. They do not want to have to take government funding if it can be avoided, but I presume they want to have the $9b on hand so that they can plan for the future. -Ford will sell its corporate aircraft, and cancel raises to salaried employees. -The CEO will work for $1 if the company takes government money. - Some blather about fuel efficiency and electric cars. So now the question is - what do you think? Personally - I like some of it, wish there was greater restrictions on the company etc. etc., but it's better than just sticking your hand out, which is what many thought would happen. The CEO will work for $1 huh ..... my first thought when I read that was... how much will he make in bonuses?"The plan Ford is presenting to Congress this week also says it will cancel all management employees' 2009 bonuses and will not pay any merit increases for its North American salaried employees next year." From that article. Not sure how bulletproof that is, but it's something, I guess. I wonder why, if they don't need the money it can't be borrowed on a line of credit type of arrangement. Available if necessary, but only if necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 2, 2008 14:13:42 GMT -5
The CEO will work for $1 huh ..... my first thought when I read that was... how much will he make in bonuses?"The plan Ford is presenting to Congress this week also says it will cancel all management employees' 2009 bonuses and will not pay any merit increases for its North American salaried employees next year." From that article. Not sure how bulletproof that is, but it's something, I guess. Yeah I read that and edited my post ... guess I should have read the article first ... but what about this year (2008) and other years ... |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 2, 2008 14:16:41 GMT -5
I wonder how difficult it would be to have Congress dictate the terms of the agreement. Like: "salaries above 60k will be stagnant for the next 3 years, those below will index according to inflation. No bonuses greater than X will be paid, and those will only be paid proportional to positive cashflow."
Or something of the like.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Dec 11, 2008 18:22:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by cigarviper on Dec 11, 2008 20:02:23 GMT -5
Who's going to bail me out ?  You'll have to fly to Ottawa in your private jet, hat in hand. It helps to look needy so wear last year's Gucci's. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 11, 2008 22:43:10 GMT -5
So Ford today pitched it's bailout plan to Congress today, which I thought was interesting. I wonder what others think: www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/12/02/ford-congress.htmlFrom the CBC Summary: -Ford wants $9,000,000,000 in loans -Ford has enough money to remain in business until the end of 2009. I presume next year's sales will determine beyond that. They do not want to have to take government funding if it can be avoided, but I presume they want to have the $9b on hand so that they can plan for the future. -Ford will sell its corporate aircraft, and cancel raises to salaried employees. -The CEO will work for $1 if the company takes government money. - Some blather about fuel efficiency and electric cars. So now the question is - what do you think? Personally - I like some of it, wish there was greater restrictions on the company etc. etc., but it's better than just sticking your hand out, which is what many thought would happen. Where are the union pay cuts? Where are the dealer cuts? Where are the plant closings? Where are the product restructuring plans? Why didn't the CBC mention the "Car Czar" tha Obamanation wants to set up along with the deals? Why didn't the CBC mention that part of the deal is a demand that the big three drop any law suits about pollution and CO2 related cases? Why didn't the CBC mention that Obamanation wants to use bailouts as a lever to control car companies along with the EPA and energy resources? Oh I know, because the CBC is a leftist mouth peice that easily ignores or presents what it thinks is good for us. Maybe they should join their Avi Lewis buddy. Back to Ford....for a billion years, the market would finiance companies. Why not now? If their plan is so good, why not go to market with it? Nothing good will come out of politicians offering taxpayer money to private companies. In the very least, the know it all idiot politicians will try their hands on controlling private companies, at the very worst, it sets up the taxpayer as an enabler for political graft and favoritism. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 11, 2008 23:18:07 GMT -5
Do I think the big three will change if we give them money? I read an editorial in the paper the other day about the perceived attitude of entitlement the "Big Three" have .... The CEOs of the big three were summoned before Congress. They came expecting to hear the details of their stimulus package and then got the rug tore out from under them when one Senator asked a simple question, then followed up with two more: Raise your hand if you came to Washington on a commercial flight?Neither of them raised their hand. How did you come here?Private jets/planes. Raise you hand if there are plans to sell luxurious assests such as these planes?Not one hand was raised again .... So Congress asked them to go and formulate a plan ..... I think they are being honest when they say they aren't certain. It's not ALL their fault. Ford's quality is up, their cars are as reliable as the Japanese and they have small vehicles that are very successful in the European market. Raise your hands if you predicted that the price of Oil would rise to $147 a barrel in three short months. Raise your hand if you predicted that it would then drop to under $44 a barrel in a few short months. Raise your hands if you think the record 100 year depression of the whole worlds economy is the fault of Chrysler, GM or Ford management. Raise your hand if you knew that unemployment and uncertainty would suddenly skyrocket. Raise your hand if you sold your house at the peak of the market to rent and buy it back in three years. Raise your hand if you can tell me with certainty where property values and the Dow will be in two years. If I was good at building big vehicles that the public wanted and I was making a ton of money doing it, I would continue to do it, not knowing that suddenly the public would balk at gasoline prices that tripled. The automobile execs are not blameless, but Toyota, Honda and Mazda are hurting too. The two biggest factors that affect the auto industry are the price of gasoline and a stable growing economy. Just trying to be fair.  |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 11, 2008 23:53:28 GMT -5
Just saw on the news that the bail-out in the US has fallen apart for now.
Congress wants to bring workers' wages in line with Japanese workers starting in 2009. The UAW wants to wait til 2010.
Don't they get it?
I'll post a link when I find it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 12, 2008 0:25:36 GMT -5
Raise your hands if you predicted that the price of Oil would rise to $147 a barrel in three short months. Here! Market speculation in a bubble economy drove all the commodities through the roof particularly oil. Raise your hand if you predicted that it would then drop to under $44 a barrel in a few short months. Masssive upswing causes recession thus a massive price downswing. Free market rules. Raise your hand if you knew that unemployment and uncertainty would suddenly skyrocket. Here! On record for the last four years. Raise your hand if you sold your house at the peak of the market to rent and buy it back in three years. Do stocks count? I resigned my BOD seat and sold my stock last Christmas. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 12, 2008 1:06:56 GMT -5
Some of the earlier enviro demands by government have been dropped and demands for wage cuts have been intesified.By John Crawley and Richard Cowan WASHINGTON, Dec 11 (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate failed on Thursday night to reach a last-ditch compromise to bail out automakers, effectively killing any chance of congressional action this year. The $14 billion legislation officially died in the Senate late on Thursday after supporters failed to get enough support in a procedural vote. Republican-brokered talks faltered, leaving the chamber at a dead end on an approach for extending $14 billion in loans to avert a threatened collapse of one or more automakers, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in remarks on the floor. "It's over with," Reid said. Markets across the Asia-Pacific region were down more than three percent after news the talks had collapsed, with Japan's Nikkei average and Hong Kong's Hang Seng both down more than five percent. U.S. crude prices fell by nearly $2 to $46.11 a barrel. The White House said it would evaluate its options in light of the collapse of the bailout legislation. White House spokesman Tony Fratto declined to say what those options included. The Bush administration has resisted Democrats' past demands to use some money from the $700 billion bailout package approved in October to help struggling financial institutions to help the automakers. Fratto said the failed legislation had "presented the best chance to avoid a disorderly bankruptcy while ensuring taxpayer funds only go to firms whose stakeholders were prepared to make difficult decisions to become viable." Lawmakers planned to move ahead with a procedural vote on a Democratic-sponsored bill negotiated with the White House that Reid admitted would not succeed. "There is too much difference" between negotiators to reach an agreement," the Nevada Democrat said. The late night development followed intense discussions on a possible compromise that participants said fell apart over proposed wage concessions by the powerful United Auto Workers "We were three words away from a deal," said Sen. Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican who proposed the alternative and led the talks. Sen. Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, said the main issue of disagreement was the date to require the Detroit autoworkers' pay parity with foreign auto manufacturers. General Motors Corp (GM.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and Chrysler LLC are seeking billions of dollars in immediate aid, while Ford Motor Co (F.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) wants a hefty line of credit. The industry is reeling from depressed sales, made worse by the credit crunch and the recession and GM and Chrysler said government intervention was required now to avert potential failure. The House of Representatives passed its version of a Democratic-sponsored bailout on Wednesday but Senate Republicans rejected that measure. A Senate aide said congressional debate on the bailout legislation is over for this year and is "now up to Secretary Paulson" on whether to use Treasury Department's TARP funds to help the industry. Polls show Americans split on bailing out the Detroit automakers, widely criticized for fighting tougher fuel efficiency standards and poor model designs that have left the companies gasping for life with a stable of products losing popularity with consumers. Because of their shared suppliers and vendors, industry fears the failure of one Detroit manufacturer could drag down the other two as well as other businesses. GM, Ford and Chrysler employ nearly 250,000 people directly, and 100,000 more jobs at parts suppliers could hang on their survival. The companies say 1-in-10 U.S. jobs are related to the auto sector. (Reporting by John Crawley; Editing by Philip Barbara and Todd Eastham) www.reuters.com/article/mergersNews/idUSN0929462720081212?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=10276Thank my athiest Gods that Harper didn't rush a bailout or the Three Stooges didn't take power and offer unconditional bailout.
Better yet....let them Chapter 11 and let the market sort them out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 12, 2008 1:18:02 GMT -5
Wait a minute..this is now getting dirtier and dirtier.....and they want OUR money? GMAC LLC is reportedly tightening its lending standards to the point where a large swath of General Motors Corp. customers may be unable to get financing to buy cars. Might this be part of GMAC's partial owner Cerberus Capital Management LP's efforts to strong-arm GM back to the table to discuss a deal to swap GMAC for Chrysler LLC? GMAC allegedly has stopped lending to anyone with a credit score under 700, which would exclude about half of the country. More importantly, most customers of GM's largest brand, Chevy, reportedly sport scores in the 600 range, noted a Wall Street Journal story. Additionally, GMAC funded 43% of all GM sales in the second quarter, but only 20% of funding in September, notes Bloomberg. GM isn't taking this lying down. Instead, it has prepared a campaign to help its customers locate financing from 100 different sources. However, the effort isn't likely to be as simple for dealers and customers as working directly with GMAC. Additionally, some of the names on the list are likely to be foreign to most buyers, and may put them off. While GMAC claims the reason for the move is because of the frozen credit markets, its timing seems curious. After all, it seems Cerberus is desperate to dump Chrysler, and has talked with any automaker willing to listen in the last few weeks. Parties who reportedly sat down with Cerberus not only include GM, but also Nissan-Renault, Fiat and Tata Motors, which recently bought Jaguar and Land Rover. However, response reportedly has been tepid. But with GM, Cerberus has an attractive tool to get the carmaker to the table, GMAC. GM can free itself from GMAC's losses if it simply trades its stake in the finance company for Chrysler. Additionally, Chrysler has cash on its books that GM could use -- assuming it doesn't have to disperse it (either as payment or through litigation) to Chrysler dealerships when they are shut down. However, that's the catch for GM, integration. GM already has too many brands (as evidenced by its attempts to sell Hummer), and Chrysler will offer three more including the truck-heavy Jeep and Dodge brands. But, the alternative could be worse. Should GMAC fall into bankruptcy, then it could be stuck with some of the bill -- much like its circumstance with Delphi Corp. - Matthew Wurtzel www.thedeal.com/dealscape/2008/10/is_cerberus_forcing_gms_hand.php
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 12, 2008 1:21:26 GMT -5
BTW, do you guys ralize that GM is worth about 3 billion in the open market? And we want to give them 6 to 8 billion? WTF? Just buy them out, let them go into receivership and then re-organize them and sell them at a profit. Better then lending them several billion and then several billion again and then several billion again....
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 12, 2008 3:01:11 GMT -5
Raise your hands if you predicted that the price of Oil would rise to $147 a barrel in three short months. Here! Market speculation in a bubble economy drove all the commodities through the roof particularly oil. Masssive upswing causes recession thus a massive price downswing. Free market rules. Here! On record for the last four years. Raise your hand if you sold your house at the peak of the market to rent and buy it back in three years. Do stocks count? I resigned my BOD seat and sold my stock last Christmas. Ford, Chrysler and GM make world class rear view mirrors. Unfortunately when you are driving you have to see what is ahead as clearly as what is behind. Mad Money Cramer is great at telling us why whatever happened occurred, but not so good at telling what will happen in the furure. Your crystal ball is better than mine. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 12, 2008 17:26:12 GMT -5
McGuinty works with Harper and they agree on a $3.5 billion bail-out for Canada's Big 3.
There'd better be concessions and accountability...starting at the TOP.
I'm with HA......there must be restructuring...a new paradigm....or it's just our money down the drain.
|
|
|
|
Post by duster on Dec 12, 2008 19:19:58 GMT -5
It's kind of hard to be sympathetic regarding the trouble GM, Ford and Chrysler have gotten themselves into. I don't see Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Nissan, Toyota, Mazda and Honda asking for loans and handouts. I wonder why?
I was in the Armed Forces when Chrysler almost went under. The Government bought 600 million dollars worth of vehicles for DND and other government departments to help them out. Most of them were junk. I'll admit it was funny seeing the Military Police driving K-cars, but, in essence, the government encouraged further mediocrity.
The simple truth is GM, Ford and Chrysler make lousy cars. Why fund more mediocrity? Does anyone here honestly believe that the Big Three will change their ways if they are bailed out? Companies like Harley-Davidson, for example, managed to turn things around by adopting a new approach. Beyond a few cosmetic measures, I haven't heard anything to that effect coming from the Big Three. Somehow, I don't see the unions and senior executives wanting to change things. What they are doing is simple blackmail. Call their bluff and let them fail. The other car companies that are well run and make good products will simply take their place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 12, 2008 20:17:58 GMT -5
McGuinty works with Harper and they agree on a $3.5 billion bail-out for Canada's Big 3. There'd better be concessions and accountability...starting at the TOP. I'm with HA......there must be restructuring...a new paradigm....or it's just our money down the drain. I agree with HA on most things when it comes to bailing them out ... but I don't think it should be done on the backs of the workers. (unless there is a contract signed that once the company reaches some plateau the workers get the wages back) |
|
|
|
Post by duster on Dec 12, 2008 21:44:43 GMT -5
The CEO will work for $1 huh ..... my first thought when I read that was... how much will he make in bonuses?EDIT: They plan to cancel management bonuses for 2009 .... what about 2008, 2010...? CEOs working for $1? What a lovely canard that is... How much you want to bet that his bonus has or will be switched for stocks options? It's common enough. Carly Fiorina - formerly the CEO at Hewlett-Packard - had all managers take a 5 % roll back in compensation, laid off thousands of employees, and froze salaries while making the heroic sacrifice of working for 1 dollar. Meanwhile, she quietly awarded herself several million dollars worth of stock options at an advantageous price to be vested at will. When she was fired a year later, she walked away with $21 million. It's a culture of entitlement. She is no different than other CEOs - past and present. |
|
