that the credit situation has caused this crisis - not Cerberus and not the worker.
You're right in saying the credit situation is causing the collapse quicker than it otherwise would. But GM and Chrysler were far from okay for years before the credit situation. They both were losing money for years, and were on an unsustainable course. They were both LEAKY SHIPS. This credit crisis is an economic storm; storms happen periodically.
So yes the credit situation accelerated the decline.
is that the fault of the worker and the retiree and the sales person at the dealership???
No. The retiree, sales person and worker of Chrysler and GM should have the goal of making as much $ as they can. Managements' goal is to keep costs low and make profit for the owners. Some things got out of balance at GM and Chrysler such that less and less people wanted their vehicles at the prices offered, and the management failed to do what is necessary to make good vehicles at a profit.
Fortunately the demise of Chrysler and GM will create the opportunity for others to replace them, and new jobs will be created.
garyan: Chrysler is no longer a viable company. you can blame the credit market if you like but the real blame is the management of Chrysler. It all started with the merger with Daimler. When Daimler sold Chrysler to Cerberus in 2007, they left nothing in the coffers. There was no products developed past 2010. Chrysler did not have a competitive, fuel efficient small car when $4 gas came along (and still don't). The only competitive vehicle they have is the Dodge Ram. Even their minivans and the 300C have fallen behind the Korean companies. This is the real reason why sales have plummeted. Heck Hyundai has a competitive car in each segment and is still reporting a profit in this horrible market. It's about the products, not the credit situation. Hyundai and Kia used to approve anyone with a pulse. Somehow they are getting it done in this market.
I don't blame Cerberus but I find it troublesome that they (Cerberus), whose business is to find investors to support business opportunities, wants to wash their hands of this mess called Chrysler. They believe so much in their company, Chrysler, that they are willing to practically give it away to Fiat. If they believed that Chrysler could become a viable company, they would have looked for private investors instead of begging the government.
I feel bad for the workers, retirees, dealers, suppliers, etc. because they don't deserve this and for the most part, it's not their fault. I don't like seeing anyone losing the jobs especially in this market. What is the alternative for Chrysler? If you have a good idea to save Chrysler, now is the time to share.
the fact based reality of the situation is that the credit situation has caused this crisis - not Cerberus and not the worker
Disagree. The credit situation has exacerbated the situation. If it caused the situation then aren't Ford, Toyota, Honda all going out of business? The weakest companies are the ones that are failing. Their fundamental weakness was not caused by the credit situation.
The failures of Circuit City, Mervyn's, Enron were also not the fault of most workers, yet the government did not bail them out. We don't normally bail out companies. Chrysler has already borrowed billions. It is a dismal failure and should perish if it is the weakest. It's failure will enhance the chances for success at GM and Ford.
over at Ford because they "only" burned through $3.7 BILLION in the first quarter of this year:
April 24, 2009 - 7:22 am ET UPDATED: 4/24/09 10:15 a.m. ET
DETROIT -- Ford Motor Co., the only U.S. automaker operating without federal bailout loans, burned through $3.7 billion in cash during the first quarter in posting its fourth straight quarterly loss.
Ford slowed the burn rate from the fourth quarter of 2008, when cash declined by $5.5 billion. Ford finished the quarter with cash reserves of $21.3 billion, up from $13.4 billion at the end of 2008. The company drew down a $10.1 billion line of credit in the first quarter.
The net loss for the quarter was $1.4 billion, compared with net income of $70 million a year earlier. The pretax operating loss, excluding special items, was $2 billion, compared with pretax income of $686 million during the year-ago period.
Ford, which analysts estimate needs $9 billion to $10 billion in cash on hand to fund operations, is trying to avoid a federal bailout as U.S. auto sales remain at 27-year lows.
....Ford's revenue plunged as first-quarter-U.S. vehicle sales fell 44.4 percent amid a recession that's now the longest since the Great Depression.
....Booth said Ford expects to have sufficient cash for the remainder of 2009, despite a "very, very difficult environment."
....Ford reiterated that it was on track to at least break even in 2011. The company hasn't had an annual profit since 2005, and last year's $14.7 billion net loss was a record.
My fear is that after wasting $20 billion on the two automakers that should have declared bankruptcy from the start, there won't be enough goodwill left in the government next year to help out Ford if/when it needs it. Right from the start Ford was the only one of the 3 worthy of a government bailout, IMO.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Ford is also worried that a protracted GM bankruptcy will hurt them because of all the suppliers who will go under. Who knows how many suppliers won't make it during GM's summer shutdown.
So Ford is rooting for, at worst, a quick GM reorganization. I'm sure they would prefer to have GM as a financially stable competitor.
Working for an automotive supplier I am glad we aren't as reliant on GM, Ford or Chrysler that they have to be open everyday or can only take a normal two - four week shut-down. We're diversified enough to were if GM or Chrysler shuts down for an extended period we have enough customers to fill the pipelines. Those that will go down if GM keeps a plant shut for 4 weeks (which can be normal if there's a model change-ver or new gen coming out) were weak to begin with and were on borrowed time.
..."As a resident of Washington, D.C., which gave President Obama a 93 percent-7 percent victory over Republican John McCain on Election Day, this is not news to me. The other night I did a car census of my single block and found:
Mercedes-Benz, Mercedes-Benz, Volvo, Land Rover, Hyundai, Infiniti, Honda, Lexus, Honda, Lincoln, Chrysler, Mercedes-Benz, Honda, Toyota, Subaru, Acura, Honda, Ford, Lexus, Lexus. That's 17 foreign, three for the home team."...
So do you think any of the three who bought an American car is a ...closet repub? Or when it comes to brass tacks do the majority of democrats dislike their rank and file union constituency?
Or is this only once cycle of the (lopsided in WASH DC anyway) duopoly?
Or when it comes to brass tacks do the majority of democrats dislike their rank and file union constituency?
Or maybe it's just that 2/3 of American car companies make cars that suck? And they're so bad at business that they need to go into bankruptcy? :shades:
Heh, the article makes it sound like people who buy domestic don't do their research, listen to what talking heads tell them to buy, and wind up making dumb purchases. Pretty funny, especially the part about the author's husband driving a Honda.
That continues to be the main point now isn't it? It is the big labor (demo) system they operate under that in your words "make cars that suck". Have you ever heard big labor "STRIKE" because management made them make cars that "suck"? Or tell demos we'll vote republican?
A "tad" ironic that demos can't even make cars that demos will buy.
That continues to be the main point now isn't it? It is the big labor (demo) system they operate under that in your words "make cars that suck". Have you ever heard big labor "STRIKE" because management made them make cars that "suck"? Or tell demos we'll vote republican?
So the Korean-sourced Aveo is the UAW's fault, right? The UAW didn't design it, didn't build it, didn't OK it...but it's the UAW's fault. How about the Aussie-sourced G8? That's the UAW's fault too, right? Did the UAW design the Cobalt? How about the Impala?
Real good one there. Typical right-wing cry: it's all the fault of the unions, they cause cancer, and the Apocalypse. :shades: Funny how Ford can make good cars while working with the UAW, isn't it?
With GM and Chysler going down the chute... they really would have no choice now would they? And 2/3 rds of the competition would be GONE !! So have you bought a FORD?
Well if we had more democrats buying American cars....the American car companies would not be having the current problems now would they?
Yes they would. Know why? GM and Chrysler are still not organized in such a way as to be profitable at that sales level. That's the other part of the big problem (besides them designing abortions like the Caliber, Cobalt, G3, etc).
With GM and Chysler going down the chute... they really would have no choice now would they?
Yeah, but up to now they had a choice. The reason Ford makes good cars is because they design good cars. The Fusion, Focus, Mustang...perennial favorites. The F150 and F-series HD trucks, the best trucks in the world for how many years, considered that by just about everyone? Even the ancient Crown Vic, still the favorite of cops and cabdrivers everywhere.
Now you are coming around to my point of view. Current "lack of sales" is a defacto "customer strike". LIke I said even the demos don't buy what demos make. The so called as you call them "right wing" should strike too !!?? Indeed in your ideal world, Ford will be even more incentivized to make even more "crap", 2/3rds of the domestic competition would be now.... GONE.
So the Korean-sourced Aveo is the UAW's fault, right? The UAW didn't design it, didn't build it, didn't OK it...but it's the UAW's fault. How about the Aussie-sourced G8? That's the UAW's fault too, right? Did the UAW design the Cobalt? How about the Impala?
Could be. My take is over priced unskilled labor takes from the other departments. Such as engineering. Why did GM go overseas to get their small cars built? Why does Ford continue to expand in Mexico and South America. SIMPLE ANSWER UAW. :confuse:
You forget the differences. GM expanded that way too and still makes junk. Ditto Chrysler. Ford, on the other hand, makes good cars.
Seems to me the problem is in car development and design, doesn't it? Might be organizational, might just be that Ford has better people in those positions. Either way, Ford is succeeding where GM and Chrysler have proven themselves unable to. And this is a level playing field, I'm not comparing them to Honda or Nissan.
Well if we had more democrats buying American cars
So, you're saying the free market Republicans should tell everyone else what to buy?
Politics sure is a funny critter.
Anyone digested the press conference yet? I hear that more tax money will be going to Chrysler to finance the bankruptcy filing and I hear that government money will be going to the dealers to help them out, via the SBA.
Now you are coming around to my point of view. Current "lack of sales" is a defacto "customer strike". LIke I said even the demos don't buy what demos make. The so called as you call them "right wing" should strike too !!?? Indeed in your ideal world, Ford will be even more incentivized to make even more "crap", 2/3rds of the domestic competition would be now.... GONE.
I do wonder how people justify GM and Chrysler products as the best product for their needs, but to each their own. If that number of people are the only ones who will, then those companies need to structure themselves to be profitable at that sales level, not whine and cry that more people should by their cars. you want more people to buy your product, you have to make your product to appeal to more people. GM tried with the Malibu and came close, but fell short. That was their best effort in quite a while.
BTW, it's "Dems." Demos are those cars that GM and Chrysler sell after the dealership manager puts about 50k miles on it in the first year. :shades: And I, like most free-market Americans, don't base my car decisions on politics. I base it on the product. And Ford still has Honda, Nissan, Toyota, and VW to compete with, so Ford has very little incentive to make "crap."
So, you're saying the free market Republicans should tell everyone else what to buy?
Don't you just love the hypocrisy of politics? Wasn't it also the free market Republicans (or at least one) that overrruled Congress and handed GM and Chrysler a bailout? :shades:
That whole article was hilarious. Even the author didn't start caring until a few months ago. both GM and Chrysler already had both feet in the grave at that point.
"I bought it in 2007 for lots of reasons--cheap, cute, nice color, zero percent interest. It was also American, but I didn't start caring about that until a few months ago."
Can we take the politics out of this whole discussion? you have two presidents who are trying to save jobs and the auto industry. I didn't agree with giving GM or Chrysler money but no one asked and it's not my job to save or create jobs. How would people feel if GM and Chrysler had went out of business on December 31st? At that time, I guarantee would have lost a bunch of suppliers and dealers.
This is about two poorly run companies making bad decision after bad decision and the public rejecting their products. I have said this a few times: Americans vote with their wallets. We will buy the best product for our money. Let's blame the right people: Rick Wagoner and the GM Board of Directors. For Chrysler: Bob Eaton (sold out Chrysler) and Daimler. I can watch Fox News If I want to hear one-sided political commentary.
Somewhat. I pretty much heard the same thing, Chrysler's going to get tax money whether they go BK or not, which it seems they're going to do. What I don't like is the whole Fiat tie-up. It's as if no one in Washington paid attention to the GM-Fiat fiasco a few years back, or are paying attention to what Fiat is going to do with Chrysler (techno-transfer my [non-permissible content removed]). The hedge funds have something up their sleeves but I think it's going to backfire on them.
My thing is these guys have no one to blame for themselves. I mean, did they not think that eventually the buyers will all have new cars and have no need to keep buying new (or used / certified pre-owned)? And if that happened there would be a glut of product? Why should we bail out them or other companies for that manner, that only saw short-term quarterly profits as the way to go? Everyone blames Obama for Wagoner's dismissal but the main ones whining about it wanted his head on a platter months ago; and now that it has happened, it's boo-hoo Wagoner. Making a plan that basically says we're going to sell more product to become profitable is not a restructuring plan; hell it's not even a plan.
I don't think political affiliation has or should have anything to do with car-buying decisions. It's silly IMO to bring politics into the consumer discussion.
The only place politics play a role is at the government level, in the bailout decision.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Mercedes-Benz, Mercedes-Benz, Volvo, Land Rover, Hyundai, Infiniti, Honda, Lexus, Honda, Lincoln, Chrysler, Mercedes-Benz, Honda, Toyota, Subaru, Acura, Honda, Ford, Lexus, Lexus. That's 17 foreign, three for the home team
Huh. I count that VERY differently. Hondas and Toyota that may have been built in Ohio or Detroit? A Volvo that applies to Ford's bottom line? Hmmm...
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Huh. I count that VERY differently. Hondas and Toyota that may have been built in Ohio or Detroit? A Volvo that applies to Ford's bottom line? Hmmm...
You beat me to it. Although not traditional American marques, how many of those "foreign" cars were actually built in the USA ? Full circle to the "What is American" debate.
Over here in Europe we have small Chevrolets...............that you probably don't see over there. However, we all know that they are really Korean-built Daewoo's and UK is as close to the USA as they are likely to get. So, are they 'American" or "Korean" ?
I don't think political affiliation has or should have anything to do with car-buying decisions.
I think it's risky for companies to dip their toes in the political waters too. Wal-Mart and Home Depot irritated/pleased some politically aware consumers the last election with public positions they took.
It's less political, but Ford has been making hay, at least in good will if not in actual profits, by avoiding bail-outs from either party in power.
..."So, you're saying the free market Republicans should tell everyone else what to buy? "...
Well if you think that is what I said or mean, that is a direct mis reading of a prior post
..."The so called as you call them "right wing" should strike too !!??"...
While the Toyota Tundra has its "issues," the plant that builds them is located in Texas. Best way to get that out of the country, aka off shore? UNIONIZE it !!!
That might be true, however politics has long been a determining factor in just about.... EVERYTHING. The ones in politics ought to take it out of most EVERYTHING. I think it gets down to nobody in politics has NEVER met a special interest that isn't .... SPECIAL.....
You speak as if FORD is wildly profitable !!!!??? Amazing!! You obviously have not been following the slide down of its shares and all the "profitable" quarters that is has posted. Do you sell used bridges or beach front land in Las Vegas?
Ford was the only one of the Big 3 to have a profitable quarter last year. Ford is the only one of the Big 3 that has not needed or wanted a bailout. Ford is not living on borrowed time and borrowed tax dollars. Ford is on a path to profitability.
Well I am dialed into your double speak ! On that level, we would agree !!! It was a very successful failure !! Or was that we had a failure that was more successful than two of our competitors? Almost makes a guy who makes a dollar the whole year look like a genius.
One quarter last year, on the other hand that is the DEFINITION of failure for 75% of the year. It is part of the double speak in which you speak. Really there is not much about not much as GM & Chysler are going to be propped up for the forseeable future link title So this would indicate the UAW is alive and well. SOS DD.
Right now the best that Ford can do is to K ball (cannabilize) a small percentage of GM/Chysler's market share that for whatever reasons want/need to jump ship to Ford. GM/Chysler can ill afford that and you can expect a full court press to shave market share from FORD. Keep in mind the MY sales went from 16-17 M to a projected 10 M. So this is an easy minus -40% market share.
Also keep in mind, unsold inventories of MY's 2008/2009 (Ford/GM/Chysler, and etc) act like boat anchors trying to achieve "top speed" on the next new 2010 MY prices and indeed inventories of THAT MY.
Lets put it this way, OEM'S will be CRAZY to build 10 M in 2010 MY inventory if 09 MY sells only 10-11 M.
That't the good news, Kiplingers sez in 2011 on another post higher taxes will kick in. Would this be comforting to those 10-11% unemployeed now?
Right now one that has been discussed in past posts, that is profitable: VW. Even VW predicts lower revenues and profits. They do however target 40% of their total US market sales for TDI's. (turbo diesels) You know, cars that actually get better mpg as the big three only talk about it?
Ford isn't that great in my book. They would have been innovative if they had come up with an assurance program before Hyundai....not catch-up like always.
That their smart call was NOT taking bailout funds is definitely agreed. Their quality was sub-par for years right along with GM and C which at least they have been addressing lately.
Their designs are still not top-shelf IMHO, save the trucks and Mustang....Lincoln is in ruins. Mercury is their Buick....they have a huge road ahead of them but they seem to be on the right track....now if only they start using premium parts and start to let the engineers get back to creative designs that inspire sales....
Or was that we had a failure that was more successful than two of our competitors?
That's basically what I was saying...they're acting in a much more successful manner than the other two Detroit Clown Brigades. If they can keep it up they'll be fine. That IS in fact an "if" but Mually's actions are much more confidence inspiring than GM's and Chrysler's right now.
One quarter last year, on the other hand that is the DEFINITION of failure for 75% of the year.
That's also significantly better than their domestic brethren, who were instead failures for 100% of the year, now weren't they? I'm glad at least ONE domestic manufacturer isn't acting completely inept, and looks like it will have a future. You should be too. You should be ESPECIALLY glad that they can do it without needing taxpayers to prop them up at all.
Except that you're still steaming that the UAW exists.
Also keep in mind, unsold inventories of MY's 2008/2009 (Ford/GM/Chysler, and etc) act like boat anchors trying to achieve "top speed" on the next new 2010 MY prices and indeed inventories of THAT MY.
Good point, and an issue every manufacturer (foreign and domestic) is having a problem with...remember the stories about cars being stacked up in port parking lots? They're not domestics for export, just a little hint there.
That being said, some manufacturers are in worse shape than others on this, and GM and Chrysler are two of them...they're also the two that can least afford to HAVE the problem in the first place. And they wouldn't have it if the companies had been managed better. And before you come out with union work rules and quotas, ask yourself who at GM, Chrysler, and Ford were dumb enough to agree to that?
Also ask yourself who torpedoed Chrysler's non-BK restructuring. The UAW ended up making a deal and made major concessions. The ones holding out were the bondholders. As in hedge funds. As in Wall-Street livin, private-jet flyin and corporate connivin suits. The guys who started the whole economic mess in the first place.
Can't say I'm surprised they're still throwing wrenches in things and expecting the government to prop them up indefinitely.
You know, cars that actually get better mpg as the big three only talk about it?
Is this America-loathing or just UAW-loathing? The Ford Fusion is the most fuel-efficient midsize sedan around. The Fusion Hybrid is the most fuel-efficient midsize hybrid around, and I don't care that Toyota expanded the glovebox just enough to make the Prius count as a midsize. The Fiesta is coming with around 40 MPG highway, spanking even Honda and Toyota.
One of the Big3 does know how to make fuel efficient cars. Maybe that's part of the reason they don't need a bailout, and will survive. Yes, while still working with and maintaining a relationship with, the UAW. Guess they're just smart enough to make smarter deals with the union. :shades:
Their designs are still not top-shelf IMHO, save the trucks and Mustang....Lincoln is in ruins. Mercury is their Buick....they have a huge road ahead of them but they seem to be on the right track....
I have to disagree with the first part...Fusion is also top-shelf. Fiesta, by all reports, is also top shelf. They do still have some dogs hanging around, the Focus is long in the tooth, the Explorer needs a replacement. Flex looks good, Edge drives real nice (though it's a bit of a porker). Ranger desperately needs some love, and the Escape is overdue for a redesign. Like you said, they're on the right path...it's going to take some time to purge the junk from the lineup, but they don't have as far to go as the guys whose lineups are 90%+ junk.
Mercury being their Buick might not be a bad though, though personally I'd do something different...make it a sport division or something. Lincoln is going to have to kind of coast for now, it's not a volume brand. Ford needs to do some more RWD with it...maybe something off of the Mustang platform, to give them a good RWD sport sedan a-la CTS. Until then, they'll have to live on the MKX and MKZ...they seem to be putting effort into them, but you can't disguise that they're Fusions and Edges with really high trim levels.
"...Except that you're still steaming that the UAW exists. "...
Or perhaps you are a UAW apologist? America hater? Hardly. Even you know that Honda,Toyota, MB, etc etc are made in America. Or have you already forgotten the majority of democrats aren't buying their constituencies handiwork?
No, but the attitudes that made the problems still exists and will live grow and multiply to complicate things further down the line. The hint is along the lines of the fox guarding the hen house or since swine flu is in the news.... The government has just paid back the UAW for past vote support and now they are putting wings on them and expecting them to fly. As I have said before, SOS DD.
You are still ignoring the fact that Ford has experienced a -40% and greater loss of sales, and have ignored totally the issues raised in a previous post. So you are talking about fabulous plans to get more democrats to buy FORDS/GM/Chyslers!!??...
And before you come out with union work rules and quotas, ask yourself who at GM, Chrysler, and Ford were dumb enough to agree to that?
No doubt about that. When the UAW went on strike the D3 should chain the gates and start moving the factories out of the USA. I forgot Ford did that with their top selling Fusion and others.
Also ask yourself who torpedoed Chrysler's non-BK restructuring. The UAW ended up making a deal and made major concessions. The ones holding out were the bondholders. As in hedge funds. As in Wall-Street livin, private-jet flyin and corporate connivin suits. The guys who started the whole economic mess in the first place.
Totally disagree. Those guys are loaning money and expect to get it back with interest. Same as you putting money in a savings account. If you have a 401k it is possible you own part of one of those bonds. Time and space does not permit to cast the blame for the sub prime mess we are in. Many on Wall Street lost their shorts over shady lending practices also.
Yes, while still working with and maintaining a relationship with, the UAW. Guess they're just smart enough to make smarter deals with the union.
Yes Ford was smart enough to move their new and hopefully popular models out of the USA. Where they cannot be cannabalized by the UAW. As far as GM and Chrysler being controlled by the UAW. I have to laugh. That is going to be the biggest joke on this country to date. Our Union got shot down for owning land that a company leased and had a bargaining contract with. The UAW owning Chrysler is such a conflict of interest I cannot believe the lame brains in Washington could be that far removed from reality.
Totally disagree. Those guys are loaning money and expect to get it back with interest. Same as you putting money in a savings account. If you have a 401k it is possible you own part of one of those bonds. Time and space does not permit to cast the blame for the sub prime mess we are in. Many on Wall Street lost their shorts over shady lending practices also.
Have to disagree with you on this...they didn't put money into a savings account, they went out and bought bonds. That's investment, which involves risk, same as buying stock. They HOPE to get it back with interest, but they knew going in that there was some risk of not only getting no money back but the bonds losing value. I'm aware of that in my 401k, and they should have been as well. They were offered quite a large amount, but tried betting on the government bailing Chrysler out again so they could get more back on their bonds. They lost.. Now the BK court can ram a deal down their throats.
The mess was primarily caused by people on Wall Street betting and losing, and then expecting the government to cover their losses so they didn't take as much of a hit.
The UAW owning Chrysler is such a conflict of interest I cannot believe the lame brains in Washington could be that far removed from reality.
Maybe so, but it could also be very interesting. There is a difference between "owning" and "running" but it should provide a very vested interest on the part of the UAW to make damn sure Chrysler is a profitable company. Might be fun to watch if nothing else. :shades:
Or perhaps you are a UAW apologist? America hater? Hardly. Even you know that Honda,Toyota, MB, etc etc are made in America. Or have you already forgotten the majority of democrats aren't buying their constituencies handiwork?
The UAW has a right to exist...they were formed under the law and operate legally. They don't need me to apologize for them. And yes, several other makes are made in the U.S.A, some with union labor, others not. Gotta love the freedom of choice that comes with the USA.
And yeah, maybe a whole lot of democrats aren't buying GM and Chrysler products. They're not buying the ones built outside the USA either. It's not a Democrat/UAW thing, like I said before. It's because they're junk. I suppose you drive a nice Honda or Nissan because it's built by good non-union labor, right? Most people don't care, but you seem real hung-up on the subject.
The government has just paid back the UAW for past vote support and now they are putting wings on them and expecting them to fly.
Please further explain and justify this statement. The UAW made concessions with Ford, and made MASSIVE ones with Chrysler. How exactly is the government paying them back?
You are still ignoring the fact that Ford has experienced a -40% and greater loss of sales, and have ignored totally the issues raised in a previous post. So you are talking about fabulous plans to get more democrats to buy FORDS/GM/Chyslers!!??
And you're apparently ignoring my posts completely, heh. I know Ford has problems, it's just in less trouble that the Bailout Boys. And I have no fabulous plans to get political parties to buy cars. I have theories about how to get PEOPLE to buy cars, but ultimately it's the consumer's decision on what to buy. That's the free market. Companies need to try to appeal to the consumer through their own actions (like Ford refusing bailout funds, which has turned into a PR victory comparatively) and by superior product, like the Fusion or the F-150. That's how the free market works.
The UAW owning Chrysler is such a conflict of interest I cannot believe the lame brains in Washington could be that far removed from reality
There's no conflict of interest here at all.
Literally no one else BUT the unions wanted anything to do with Chrysler. Even the parent company wanted out so much that it was willing to give it away for free and kiss off the entire investment that it had made. There's no good or bad here. They gave the unions the chance to buy the company so that the member could continue to work and the retirees could continue to get paid and we the taxpayers wouldn't have to foot the bill for the pensions nor the weight of the collapse of employment.
It's a pretty slick move actually. Now it really doesn't matter what anyone thinks about the UAW and Chrysler. They are one in the same. If they decide to put themselves out of business down the road then they can do it - it's their own company. If they decide to work their a$$es off and make Chrysler a nice little profit machine because they get the profits of their own labor, then that's good too.
To us it doesn't matter one way or the other - after we get repaid our investment.
You have no say in what your neighbor does inside his house as long as it doesn't intrude on you. It's no different here.
A writer being interview on Detroit yesterday said the UAW made minor concessions adn in return received $5 bill and 55% of the company. We're all set for the 2012 elections.
It's my thinking the UAW should end up like PATCO.
Heard a clip on a radio show this morning of our brilliant guy in the White House. He said that Chrysler bankruptcy should not be considered a Failure. What?
He said that Chrysler bankruptcy should not be considered a Failure.
As long as it doesn't go from Ch11 to Ch7 then it's not a failure. If it gets to Ch7....all bets are off, and we taxpayers don't get repaid. That's what will make it a failure.
Comments
You're right in saying the credit situation is causing the collapse quicker than it otherwise would. But GM and Chrysler were far from okay for years before the credit situation. They both were losing money for years, and were on an unsustainable course. They were both LEAKY SHIPS. This credit crisis is an economic storm; storms happen periodically.
So yes the credit situation accelerated the decline.
is that the fault of the worker and the retiree and the sales person at the dealership???
No. The retiree, sales person and worker of Chrysler and GM should have the goal of making as much $ as they can. Managements' goal is to keep costs low and make profit for the owners. Some things got out of balance at GM and Chrysler such that less and less people wanted their vehicles at the prices offered, and the management failed to do what is necessary to make good vehicles at a profit.
Fortunately the demise of Chrysler and GM will create the opportunity for others to replace them, and new jobs will be created.
I don't blame Cerberus but I find it troublesome that they (Cerberus), whose business is to find investors to support business opportunities, wants to wash their hands of this mess called Chrysler. They believe so much in their company, Chrysler, that they are willing to practically give it away to Fiat. If they believed that Chrysler could become a viable company, they would have looked for private investors instead of begging the government.
I feel bad for the workers, retirees, dealers, suppliers, etc. because they don't deserve this and for the most part, it's not their fault. I don't like seeing anyone losing the jobs especially in this market. What is the alternative for Chrysler? If you have a good idea to save Chrysler, now is the time to share.
Disagree. The credit situation has exacerbated the situation. If it caused the situation then aren't Ford, Toyota, Honda all going out of business? The weakest companies are the ones that are failing. Their fundamental weakness was not caused by the credit situation.
The failures of Circuit City, Mervyn's, Enron were also not the fault of most workers, yet the government did not bail them out. We don't normally bail out companies. Chrysler has already borrowed billions. It is a dismal failure and should perish if it is the weakest. It's failure will enhance the chances for success at GM and Ford.
April 24, 2009 - 7:22 am ET
UPDATED: 4/24/09 10:15 a.m. ET
DETROIT -- Ford Motor Co., the only U.S. automaker operating without federal bailout loans, burned through $3.7 billion in cash during the first quarter in posting its fourth straight quarterly loss.
Ford slowed the burn rate from the fourth quarter of 2008, when cash declined by $5.5 billion. Ford finished the quarter with cash reserves of $21.3 billion, up from $13.4 billion at the end of 2008. The company drew down a $10.1 billion line of credit in the first quarter.
The net loss for the quarter was $1.4 billion, compared with net income of $70 million a year earlier. The pretax operating loss, excluding special items, was $2 billion, compared with pretax income of $686 million during the year-ago period.
Ford, which analysts estimate needs $9 billion to $10 billion in cash on hand to fund operations, is trying to avoid a federal bailout as U.S. auto sales remain at 27-year lows.
....Ford's revenue plunged as first-quarter-U.S. vehicle sales fell 44.4 percent amid a recession that's now the longest since the Great Depression.
....Booth said Ford expects to have sufficient cash for the remainder of 2009, despite a "very, very difficult environment."
....Ford reiterated that it was on track to at least break even in 2011. The company hasn't had an annual profit since 2005, and last year's $14.7 billion net loss was a record.
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090424/ANA02/904249991/1142-
(registration link)
My fear is that after wasting $20 billion on the two automakers that should have declared bankruptcy from the start, there won't be enough goodwill left in the government next year to help out Ford if/when it needs it. Right from the start Ford was the only one of the 3 worthy of a government bailout, IMO.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
So Ford is rooting for, at worst, a quick GM reorganization. I'm sure they would prefer to have GM as a financially stable competitor.
Glad to hear your outfit's jobs are spread around.
..."As a resident of Washington, D.C., which gave President Obama a 93 percent-7 percent victory over Republican John McCain on Election Day, this is not news to me. The other night I did a car census of my single block and found:
Mercedes-Benz, Mercedes-Benz, Volvo, Land Rover, Hyundai, Infiniti, Honda, Lexus, Honda, Lincoln, Chrysler, Mercedes-Benz, Honda, Toyota, Subaru, Acura, Honda, Ford, Lexus, Lexus. That's 17 foreign, three for the home team."...
link title
So do you think any of the three who bought an American car is a ...closet repub?
Or is this only once cycle of the (lopsided in WASH DC anyway) duopoly?
Or maybe it's just that 2/3 of American car companies make cars that suck? And they're so bad at business that they need to go into bankruptcy? :shades:
A "tad" ironic that demos can't even make cars that demos will buy.
Don't you just HATE mirrors?
So the Korean-sourced Aveo is the UAW's fault, right? The UAW didn't design it, didn't build it, didn't OK it...but it's the UAW's fault. How about the Aussie-sourced G8? That's the UAW's fault too, right? Did the UAW design the Cobalt? How about the Impala?
Real good one there. Typical right-wing cry: it's all the fault of the unions, they cause cancer, and the Apocalypse. :shades: Funny how Ford can make good cars while working with the UAW, isn't it?
Yes they would. Know why? GM and Chrysler are still not organized in such a way as to be profitable at that sales level. That's the other part of the big problem (besides them designing abortions like the Caliber, Cobalt, G3, etc).
Yeah, but up to now they had a choice. The reason Ford makes good cars is because they design good cars. The Fusion, Focus, Mustang...perennial favorites. The F150 and F-series HD trucks, the best trucks in the world for how many years, considered that by just about everyone? Even the ancient Crown Vic, still the favorite of cops and cabdrivers everywhere.
Could be. My take is over priced unskilled labor takes from the other departments. Such as engineering. Why did GM go overseas to get their small cars built? Why does Ford continue to expand in Mexico and South America. SIMPLE ANSWER UAW. :confuse:
Seems to me the problem is in car development and design, doesn't it? Might be organizational, might just be that Ford has better people in those positions. Either way, Ford is succeeding where GM and Chrysler have proven themselves unable to. And this is a level playing field, I'm not comparing them to Honda or Nissan.
So, you're saying the free market Republicans should tell everyone else what to buy?
Politics sure is a funny critter.
Anyone digested the press conference yet? I hear that more tax money will be going to Chrysler to finance the bankruptcy filing and I hear that government money will be going to the dealers to help them out, via the SBA.
I do wonder how people justify GM and Chrysler products as the best product for their needs, but to each their own. If that number of people are the only ones who will, then those companies need to structure themselves to be profitable at that sales level, not whine and cry that more people should by their cars. you want more people to buy your product, you have to make your product to appeal to more people. GM tried with the Malibu and came close, but fell short. That was their best effort in quite a while.
BTW, it's "Dems." Demos are those cars that GM and Chrysler sell after the dealership manager puts about 50k miles on it in the first year. :shades: And I, like most free-market Americans, don't base my car decisions on politics. I base it on the product. And Ford still has Honda, Nissan, Toyota, and VW to compete with, so Ford has very little incentive to make "crap."
Don't you just love the hypocrisy of politics? Wasn't it also the free market Republicans (or at least one) that overrruled Congress and handed GM and Chrysler a bailout? :shades:
"I bought it in 2007 for lots of reasons--cheap, cute, nice color, zero percent interest. It was also American, but I didn't start caring about that until a few months ago."
Can we take the politics out of this whole discussion? you have two presidents who are trying to save jobs and the auto industry. I didn't agree with giving GM or Chrysler money but no one asked and it's not my job to save or create jobs. How would people feel if GM and Chrysler had went out of business on December 31st? At that time, I guarantee would have lost a bunch of suppliers and dealers.
This is about two poorly run companies making bad decision after bad decision and the public rejecting their products. I have said this a few times: Americans vote with their wallets. We will buy the best product for our money. Let's blame the right people: Rick Wagoner and the GM Board of Directors. For Chrysler: Bob Eaton (sold out Chrysler) and Daimler. I can watch Fox News If I want to hear one-sided political commentary.
Somewhat. I pretty much heard the same thing, Chrysler's going to get tax money whether they go BK or not, which it seems they're going to do. What I don't like is the whole Fiat tie-up. It's as if no one in Washington paid attention to the GM-Fiat fiasco a few years back, or are paying attention to what Fiat is going to do with Chrysler (techno-transfer my [non-permissible content removed]). The hedge funds have something up their sleeves but I think it's going to backfire on them.
My thing is these guys have no one to blame for themselves. I mean, did they not think that eventually the buyers will all have new cars and have no need to keep buying new (or used / certified pre-owned)? And if that happened there would be a glut of product? Why should we bail out them or other companies for that manner, that only saw short-term quarterly profits as the way to go? Everyone blames Obama for Wagoner's dismissal but the main ones whining about it wanted his head on a platter months ago; and now that it has happened, it's boo-hoo Wagoner. Making a plan that basically says we're going to sell more product to become profitable is not a restructuring plan; hell it's not even a plan.
As you said, politics is a funny critter.
The only place politics play a role is at the government level, in the bailout decision.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Huh. I count that VERY differently. Hondas and Toyota that may have been built in Ohio or Detroit? A Volvo that applies to Ford's bottom line? Hmmm...
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
You beat me to it. Although not traditional American marques, how many of those "foreign" cars were actually built in the USA ? Full circle to the "What is American" debate.
Over here in Europe we have small Chevrolets...............that you probably don't see over there. However, we all know that they are really Korean-built Daewoo's and UK is as close to the USA as they are likely to get. So, are they 'American" or "Korean" ?
I think it's risky for companies to dip their toes in the political waters too. Wal-Mart and Home Depot irritated/pleased some politically aware consumers the last election with public positions they took.
It's less political, but Ford has been making hay, at least in good will if not in actual profits, by avoiding bail-outs from either party in power.
Well if you think that is what I said or mean, that is a direct mis reading of a prior post
..."The so called as you call them "right wing" should strike too !!??"...
While the Toyota Tundra has its "issues," the plant that builds them is located in Texas. Best way to get that out of the country, aka off shore? UNIONIZE it !!!
link title
I'd call that a success.
Well I am dialed into your double speak ! On that level, we would agree !!! It was a very successful failure !!
One quarter last year, on the other hand that is the DEFINITION of failure for 75% of the year. It is part of the double speak in which you speak. Really there is not much about not much as GM & Chysler are going to be propped up for the forseeable future link title So this would indicate the UAW is alive and well. SOS DD.
Right now the best that Ford can do is to K ball (cannabilize) a small percentage of GM/Chysler's market share that for whatever reasons want/need to jump ship to Ford. GM/Chysler can ill afford that and you can expect a full court press to shave market share from FORD. Keep in mind the MY sales went from 16-17 M to a projected 10 M. So this is an easy minus -40% market share.
Also keep in mind, unsold inventories of MY's 2008/2009 (Ford/GM/Chysler, and etc) act like boat anchors trying to achieve "top speed" on the next new 2010 MY prices and indeed inventories of THAT MY.
Lets put it this way, OEM'S will be CRAZY to build 10 M in 2010 MY inventory if 09 MY sells only 10-11 M.
That't the good news, Kiplingers sez in 2011 on another post higher taxes will kick in. Would this be comforting to those 10-11% unemployeed now?
Right now one that has been discussed in past posts, that is profitable: VW. Even VW predicts lower revenues and profits. They do however target 40% of their total US market sales for TDI's. (turbo diesels) You know, cars that actually get better mpg as the big three only talk about it?
That their smart call was NOT taking bailout funds is definitely agreed. Their quality was sub-par for years right along with GM and C which at least they have been addressing lately.
Their designs are still not top-shelf IMHO, save the trucks and Mustang....Lincoln is in ruins. Mercury is their Buick....they have a huge road ahead of them but they seem to be on the right track....now if only they start using premium parts and start to let the engineers get back to creative designs that inspire sales....
Regards,
OW
That's basically what I was saying...they're acting in a much more successful manner than the other two Detroit Clown Brigades. If they can keep it up they'll be fine. That IS in fact an "if" but Mually's actions are much more confidence inspiring than GM's and Chrysler's right now.
One quarter last year, on the other hand that is the DEFINITION of failure for 75% of the year.
That's also significantly better than their domestic brethren, who were instead failures for 100% of the year, now weren't they? I'm glad at least ONE domestic manufacturer isn't acting completely inept, and looks like it will have a future. You should be too. You should be ESPECIALLY glad that they can do it without needing taxpayers to prop them up at all.
Except that you're still steaming that the UAW exists.
Also keep in mind, unsold inventories of MY's 2008/2009 (Ford/GM/Chysler, and etc) act like boat anchors trying to achieve "top speed" on the next new 2010 MY prices and indeed inventories of THAT MY.
Good point, and an issue every manufacturer (foreign and domestic) is having a problem with...remember the stories about cars being stacked up in port parking lots? They're not domestics for export, just a little hint there.
That being said, some manufacturers are in worse shape than others on this, and GM and Chrysler are two of them...they're also the two that can least afford to HAVE the problem in the first place. And they wouldn't have it if the companies had been managed better. And before you come out with union work rules and quotas, ask yourself who at GM, Chrysler, and Ford were dumb enough to agree to that?
Also ask yourself who torpedoed Chrysler's non-BK restructuring. The UAW ended up making a deal and made major concessions. The ones holding out were the bondholders. As in hedge funds. As in Wall-Street livin, private-jet flyin and corporate connivin suits. The guys who started the whole economic mess in the first place.
Can't say I'm surprised they're still throwing wrenches in things and expecting the government to prop them up indefinitely.
You know, cars that actually get better mpg as the big three only talk about it?
Is this America-loathing or just UAW-loathing? The Ford Fusion is the most fuel-efficient midsize sedan around. The Fusion Hybrid is the most fuel-efficient midsize hybrid around, and I don't care that Toyota expanded the glovebox just enough to make the Prius count as a midsize. The Fiesta is coming with around 40 MPG highway, spanking even Honda and Toyota.
One of the Big3 does know how to make fuel efficient cars. Maybe that's part of the reason they don't need a bailout, and will survive. Yes, while still working with and maintaining a relationship with, the UAW. Guess they're just smart enough to make smarter deals with the union. :shades:
I have to disagree with the first part...Fusion is also top-shelf. Fiesta, by all reports, is also top shelf. They do still have some dogs hanging around, the Focus is long in the tooth, the Explorer needs a replacement. Flex looks good, Edge drives real nice (though it's a bit of a porker). Ranger desperately needs some love, and the Escape is overdue for a redesign. Like you said, they're on the right path...it's going to take some time to purge the junk from the lineup, but they don't have as far to go as the guys whose lineups are 90%+ junk.
Mercury being their Buick might not be a bad though, though personally I'd do something different...make it a sport division or something. Lincoln is going to have to kind of coast for now, it's not a volume brand. Ford needs to do some more RWD with it...maybe something off of the Mustang platform, to give them a good RWD sport sedan a-la CTS. Until then, they'll have to live on the MKX and MKZ...they seem to be putting effort into them, but you can't disguise that they're Fusions and Edges with really high trim levels.
Or perhaps you are a UAW apologist? America hater? Hardly. Even you know that Honda,Toyota, MB, etc etc are made in America. Or have you already forgotten the majority of democrats aren't buying their constituencies handiwork?
No, but the attitudes that made the problems still exists and will live grow and multiply to complicate things further down the line. The hint is along the lines of the fox guarding the hen house or since swine flu is in the news.... The government has just paid back the UAW for past vote support and now they are putting wings on them and expecting them to fly. As I have said before, SOS DD.
You are still ignoring the fact that Ford has experienced a -40% and greater loss of sales, and have ignored totally the issues raised in a previous post. So you are talking about fabulous plans to get more democrats to buy FORDS/GM/Chyslers!!??...
No doubt about that. When the UAW went on strike the D3 should chain the gates and start moving the factories out of the USA. I forgot Ford did that with their top selling Fusion and others.
Also ask yourself who torpedoed Chrysler's non-BK restructuring. The UAW ended up making a deal and made major concessions. The ones holding out were the bondholders. As in hedge funds. As in Wall-Street livin, private-jet flyin and corporate connivin suits. The guys who started the whole economic mess in the first place.
Totally disagree. Those guys are loaning money and expect to get it back with interest. Same as you putting money in a savings account. If you have a 401k it is possible you own part of one of those bonds. Time and space does not permit to cast the blame for the sub prime mess we are in. Many on Wall Street lost their shorts over shady lending practices also.
Yes, while still working with and maintaining a relationship with, the UAW. Guess they're just smart enough to make smarter deals with the union.
Yes Ford was smart enough to move their new and hopefully popular models out of the USA. Where they cannot be cannabalized by the UAW. As far as GM and Chrysler being controlled by the UAW. I have to laugh. That is going to be the biggest joke on this country to date. Our Union got shot down for owning land that a company leased and had a bargaining contract with. The UAW owning Chrysler is such a conflict of interest I cannot believe the lame brains in Washington could be that far removed from reality.
Help to bankrupt a few companies and wind up owning the most percentage. The Mafia aint got nothing on the UAW !!!
Have to disagree with you on this...they didn't put money into a savings account, they went out and bought bonds. That's investment, which involves risk, same as buying stock. They HOPE to get it back with interest, but they knew going in that there was some risk of not only getting no money back but the bonds losing value. I'm aware of that in my 401k, and they should have been as well. They were offered quite a large amount, but tried betting on the government bailing Chrysler out again so they could get more back on their bonds. They lost.. Now the BK court can ram a deal down their throats.
The mess was primarily caused by people on Wall Street betting and losing, and then expecting the government to cover their losses so they didn't take as much of a hit.
The UAW owning Chrysler is such a conflict of interest I cannot believe the lame brains in Washington could be that far removed from reality.
Maybe so, but it could also be very interesting. There is a difference between "owning" and "running" but it should provide a very vested interest on the part of the UAW to make damn sure Chrysler is a profitable company. Might be fun to watch if nothing else. :shades:
The UAW has a right to exist...they were formed under the law and operate legally. They don't need me to apologize for them. And yes, several other makes are made in the U.S.A, some with union labor, others not. Gotta love the freedom of choice that comes with the USA.
And yeah, maybe a whole lot of democrats aren't buying GM and Chrysler products. They're not buying the ones built outside the USA either. It's not a Democrat/UAW thing, like I said before. It's because they're junk. I suppose you drive a nice Honda or Nissan because it's built by good non-union labor, right? Most people don't care, but you seem real hung-up on the subject.
The government has just paid back the UAW for past vote support and now they are putting wings on them and expecting them to fly.
Please further explain and justify this statement. The UAW made concessions with Ford, and made MASSIVE ones with Chrysler. How exactly is the government paying them back?
You are still ignoring the fact that Ford has experienced a -40% and greater loss of sales, and have ignored totally the issues raised in a previous post. So you are talking about fabulous plans to get more democrats to buy FORDS/GM/Chyslers!!??
And you're apparently ignoring my posts completely, heh. I know Ford has problems, it's just in less trouble that the Bailout Boys. And I have no fabulous plans to get political parties to buy cars. I have theories about how to get PEOPLE to buy cars, but ultimately it's the consumer's decision on what to buy. That's the free market. Companies need to try to appeal to the consumer through their own actions (like Ford refusing bailout funds, which has turned into a PR victory comparatively) and by superior product, like the Fusion or the F-150. That's how the free market works.
There's no conflict of interest here at all.
Literally no one else BUT the unions wanted anything to do with Chrysler. Even the parent company wanted out so much that it was willing to give it away for free and kiss off the entire investment that it had made. There's no good or bad here. They gave the unions the chance to buy the company so that the member could continue to work and the retirees could continue to get paid and we the taxpayers wouldn't have to foot the bill for the pensions nor the weight of the collapse of employment.
It's a pretty slick move actually. Now it really doesn't matter what anyone thinks about the UAW and Chrysler. They are one in the same. If they decide to put themselves out of business down the road then they can do it - it's their own company. If they decide to work their a$$es off and make Chrysler a nice little profit machine because they get the profits of their own labor, then that's good too.
To us it doesn't matter one way or the other - after we get repaid our investment.
You have no say in what your neighbor does inside his house as long as it doesn't intrude on you. It's no different here.
What were the massive concessions?
A writer being interview on Detroit yesterday said the UAW made minor concessions adn in return received $5 bill and 55% of the company. We're all set for the 2012 elections.
It's my thinking the UAW should end up like PATCO.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Heard a clip on a radio show this morning of our brilliant guy in the White House. He said that Chrysler bankruptcy should not be considered a Failure. What?
It has allowed him to pay back the UAW for their support and ensure their support for his 2012 reelection bid.
Oh. We should be analyzing in terms of what it means for our country, not what it means for one man and his team in the WH.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
As long as it doesn't go from Ch11 to Ch7 then it's not a failure. If it gets to Ch7....all bets are off, and we taxpayers don't get repaid. That's what will make it a failure.