Bailout could bring bankruptcy-like reorganization
The U.S. government’s proposed rescue package for the Detroit Three automakers is intended to help them avoid the potential devastation of bankruptcy. But some of the benefits of Chapter 11 reorganization might come as a part of the legislation, without all the drawbacks of a bankruptcy protection filing.
The companies will undergo a “restructuring process akin to bankruptcy reorganization,” according to a report by the Wall Street Journal. This includes renegotiating agreements with unions, suppliers, and creditors. The process would involve “fewer rigors,” and would have the government, not a judge, in control.
If the Congress passes the rescue package, the reorganization program would be managed by the ‘car czar’ appointed by the government. At this moment, it appears Kenneth Feinberg, who managed the 9/11 victims’ families’ fund, is likely to get that job.
In addition to orchestrating a possible reorganization of the Detroit Three, the ‘czar’ would also have to be informed of any transaction of $25 million or more and any “material change” in their financial condition. Lastly, the czar would have the ability to force any of the companies into bankruptcy if they fail in their duty to restructure and become viable.
Any effort to force reorganization of the Detroit Three in a Chapter 11-like manner should appease observers on both sides of the bailout debate. On the one hand, the Detroit Three won’t have the stigma of being bankrupt — something that could result in drastically lower sales. On the other hand, creditors, suppliers, and unions won’t be getting a free lunch.
See like we're Liking What We Hear with regeard to the bailout, but I'm wondering how GM's full page apology is going to play. There was already sentiment in Congress that Wagoner has to go. The reaction to the apology might push more of the public towards that conclusion too.
I do think that Wagoner is a BIG part of GM's failure. The problem as I see it. Who in their right mind would take on that job for a buck a year with NO bonus or incentives? Add to that you have Congress sitting on the board telling you what to do. How can that possibly work. I did not see any immediate concessions from the UAW. Or the retirees health care. All have to be cut or eliminated for GM to have a chance to succeed.
"... and yet now be without a direction to turn?" copied from Ed's latest column. Could next week's column be no direction home
Told you in November, at least maybe Ford in spite of the family seems to be showing congress the other cheek yes that one not the one you think your book means
And the third risk — one barely discussed so far — is that in trying to save the nation's carmakers, the United States is violating at least the spirit of what it has preached around the world for two decades. The United States has demanded that nations treat American companies on their soil the same way they treat their home-grown industries, a concept called "national treatment."
Yet so far, there is no talk of offering aid to Toyota, Honda, BMW or the other foreign automakers that have built factories on American soil, employed American workers and managed to make a profit doing so.
"If Japan was doing this, we'd be threatening billions of dollars in retaliation," said Jeffrey Garten, a professor at the Yale School of Management, who as under secretary of commerce in the 1990s was one of many government officials who tried in vain to get Detroit prepared for a world of international competition. "In fact, when they did something a lot more subtle, we threatened exactly that," referring to calls for import restrictions.
Garten said he was stunned by the scope of the intervention that Washington was now considering. "I don't know that we've seen anything like this since the government told the automakers what kind of tanks to make during World War II," he said. "And that was just for the duration of the war — this could be for much, much longer."
For those that want a level playing field this will have to be addressed. The new administration is shaping up a lot like the Clinton administration. These comments are from that era. I don't see how we can loan money to GM and not to BMW. We are more likely to get the money back with interest from BMW. Protecting US workers does not mean UAW workers only.
Vinnmar: Sen. Shelby. Yes. You. From Alabama. You've been awfully vocal. You called the Detroit Three's leaders "failures." You said loans to them would be "wasted money." You said they should go bankrupt and "let the market work." Why weren't you equally vocal when your state handed out hundreds of millions in tax breaks to Mercedes-Benz, Hyundai, Honda and others to open plants there?
Let's compare apples to apples, please...
Those subsidies were designed to encourage those companies to build facilities in Alabama. They weren't designed to prop up companies that were likely to fail even WITH the government subsidies (as will likely happen with GM and Chrysler).
Mr. Albom conveniently forgets that GM, Ford and Chrysler have received that type of subsidy, too...they merely had to threaten to close a plant, unless state and local government ponied up tax abatements and infrastructure improvements.
He also apparently forgets the bidding circus that surrounded GM's Saturn announcement. States were falling all over themselves with generous incentive packages to encourage GM to locate the plant within its borders. I don't recall GM turning down the subsidies and incentives offered by Tennessee in exchange for its agreement to locate the Saturn plant there.
If Mr. Albom is against these subsidies - fine, I'm against them, too.
But let's stop pretending that only the the transplant operations have benefited from state and local government largesse with taxpayer dollars.
So color me unimpressed with this argument...
The simple fact is Chrysler is toast, and GM needs a pre-packaged bankruptcy to allow itself time to renegotiate its supplier and UAW contracts, and shed divisions (and the associated dealer groups).
The real reason this solution is being resisted is because it would eliminate dealers and require the UAW to REALLY renegotiate the contract, not offer the largely cosmetic "concessions" that it has so far put forth in this whole discussion.
Instead, we get hysteria and doom-and-gloom nonsense that will only prolong the agony.
It isn't 1953 anymore, folks. Charlie Wilson is long dead, and the GM he led has already joined him...too many people are still resisting the obvious.
There is still room for GM in the domestic auto industry, just not one that is burdened with this UAW contract, and one that offers the same basic vehicle through 3-4 divisions. GM needs to slim down to Chevrolet, Cadillac and maybe a combined Buick-GMC. It also needs to broom most of its top management. Anything short of this is a waste of time...
I think there's been plenty of subsidies given to protect jobs in existing industries over the years. It's pretty common for a company to threaten to close and then have the local taxing authority subsidize them somehow. The worse shape the company is in, the more likely it seems that they'll get a subsidy.
It happened here with Micron - lots of property tax breaks to try to keep them afloat, but it's anyone's guess if the local fab plant will survive.
But it isn't just the transplants that have benefited from this practice, despite the impression that Mr. Albom is trying to convey...and GM and Chrysler will still eventually falter if receive what Congress is proposing. At least Alabama didn't essentially flush its money down the toilet.
This proposed aid package is only delaying the inevitable.
But subsidies are also designed to prop up companies that are likely to fail even with the government subsidies. They're not limited to attracting new companies.
The Southern automakers didn't just get a one time gift of roads or sewer or other infrastructure. They got job training money and I bet there's still money out there to run people through the community colleges to train them to be autoworkers.
And just because Nissan in Canton or Hyundai in Alabama hasn't failed yet doesn't mean they won't go the way of many of the biodiesel plants.
Whatever your opinion on the bail-out, I highly recommend posters here rent "Who Killed The Electric Car", a documentary that in an eerie sense of timing came out shortly before gasoline rocketed up to four bucks a gallon.
Even though there are points of nimby-liberal nonsense (the phrase global warming is mentioned a little too often with the usual alarmist film stock/I'm not sure at what point hurricanes became "unnatural" and caused by global warming) there is a nerve-jarring factual observation of how GM operates. Ford does not go unscathed. The phrase "Sheer stupidity" comes to mind.
After playing the documentary make sure you play "Do you really want to get into this argument on camera?" in the bonus section of the dvd. It points out how ill-informed or naive some car buffs are.
I have one key question for my representative in D.C. on this bail-out and it's simply "Are they also giving cash to Tesla or Aptera for use in developing their products?"
The U.S. auto industry - for 100 years an icon of American productivity and industrial might - is on the verge of collapse. The stakes couldn't be higher. Either the federal government steps in to provide emergency aid or Chrysler and General Motors say they may be forced into bankruptcy by the time a new administration takes office.
The consequences of such a failure, in my mind, require that Congress take a prudent risk and provide help to a beleaguered industry that has been a linchpin of the American economy for more than a century. The cost in jobs, lost productivity, and industrial infrastructure supporting the industry would be devastating.
Congress should intervene, but only with strong assurance that the car manufacturers have a viable plan for survival and turnaround. In the face of an angry, resentful public, the burden of proof lies with the industry. Congress will not throw good money after bad.
First and foremost, Congress must know whether there is a reasonable chance that a financial lifeline - in the form of bridge loans or other kinds of support - will keep the automakers afloat long enough to weather the current storm and start down the road to recovery. Substantial sacrifices by the automakers, labor, dealers, suppliers and creditors will be required.
Congress will examine the Big Three's plans for recovery and weigh their plausibility with the help of experts. The money, if it comes, is likely to be drawn from an existing $25 billion loan program meant to help the Big Three improve fuel efficiency. That money, in turn, would be replenished quickly, perhaps from the $700 billion Wall Street rescue package, which the incoming administration has said it will consider spending partly on the auto industry.
Last week, I convened a meeting in Philadelphia with top executives from the Big Three and their financial lending arms; labor leaders, local dealers and suppliers; and economists. The goal was to answer questions and allow them to state the case for government assistance.
The discussion was sobering. GM and Chrysler said they need cash this year. Ford said that if one company goes down, so would the rest.
The automakers face an uphill battle, though. The American taxpayer has a deep-seated aversion to bailouts, if judged by the reaction to the Wall Street rescue. Congress shares the public's skepticism. In our free-enterprise system, the market is supposed to determine the winners and losers.
The pressure to act quickly does not help. There is not time for regular order in Congress: introduction of legislation, committee hearings, debate, amendment, House-Senate conference. Congress should not rush to judgment, as it did with the Wall Street bailout, which was passed without time to fix the provisions that have provoked so much public anger.
But a failure of the automakers could be cataclysmic. Even the threat of bankruptcy poses risks. Who wants to buy a car, after all, from a company that may not be there tomorrow? Consumers will worry about warranties, service and resale.
This week in Washington, we will be searching for an answer in Congress or action by Treasury. If the automakers get government help, the next administration will have the challenging task of overseeing and enforcing the difficult concessions needed to return this troubled industry to profitability.
So the rationale is: look at all the money we have already wasted. What's some more?
Yes it's sad that people can't see past the "well you got some for this, so I want some now too" attitude. To continue that means the government is going broke. I gguess Vinnmar doesn't want or need Social Security. Or I guess he thinks the government simply prints more, infinitely.
The fact is that the U.S. Treasury will probably get most of the money back that they are lending, and the companies that they are lending to have already made significant cuts since. Citi has laid off 50,000 employees - not Job banks, not ove rthe next 2 years. What is GM and Chrysler done since Oct.?
I think what the Bush admin. is asking is that the government only loan $ to companies that are viable in the long-run. That means GM and Chrysler need to reorganize BEFORE the loan, and not get the loan and then take months or years.
In order to do this GM should be calling in its suppliers, UAW, and dealer reps., and working feverishly 24/7 to rewrite their contracts and agreements. I still don't think the execs. "get it", and want to continue with business-as-usual with minimum change.
WE CAN'T AFFORD NOT TO HELP THIS ENGINE OF THE ECONOMY
LETTING THE BIG THREE automakers fail - as they are in immediate danger of doing - would be playing Russian Roulette with the American economy, says Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd.
But the odds of the United States surviving a collapse of its domestic car industry aren't as high as all that. So, even if you would rather walk than ever buy an American car, you have a major stake in Congress providing bridge loans for GM, Chrysler and Ford. Unfortunately, the $15 billion House Democrats came up with over the weekend to tide over the industry - a special session this week could finalize it, at least until a new Congress and president can come up with a more permanent plan, comes from a fund that was reserved for developing more fuel-efficient cars. But there really is no alternative.
A collapse of the American auto industry would mean the loss of 3 million jobs nationwide in the first year, according to the Center for Automotive Research, in Ann Arbor, Mich. That includes not only the direct loss of auto-worker jobs, but indirect losses from the bankruptcy of industry suppliers and ripple effects in the wider economy.
Contrary to what senators from southern states with non-union, foreign automakers believe, that wouldn't be good news for them, either, since they are dependent on the same suppliers.
The loss of jobs would result in a drop in Social Security payments and income-tax revenues, and the government would lose at least $60 billion in the first year, almost double the $34 billion "ask" from the auto company CEOs who appeared before Congress last week.
Bankruptcy isn't a realistic option, either, since consumers aren't likely to buy cars from bankrupt companies, and the companies would go belly-up anyway. We can't risk that level of shock to our already-reeling economic system.
It's true that American auto companies have been guilty of near-criminal myopia over the years, and that their CEOs were tone-deaf as well, arriving on private jets to testify before Congress a couple of weeks ago.
But the vehemence of attacks, not only on the quality of American cars (most of which are comparable to foreign makes) and the alleged greed of the union workers who make them, reveal a not-so-veiled attempt at scapegoating.
Pennsylvania's U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, a member of the Senate Banking Committee who strongly supports making the loans, went so far as to call them "lies." Most egregious: the assertion that union auto workers earn $73 an hour in wages and benefits compared to $42 an hour paid to non-union workers making foreign cars.
The truth is that hourly wages for UAW members are comparable to those of non-union workers. The extra money includes the costs of health care, pensions and other compensation for millions of retired workers, which aren't in any way worker "earnings."
Concessions from the UAW and planned oversight of the proposed deal make this reasonable risk to take. But American cars will never be able to compete in the global marketplace until U.S. automakers no longer are burdened with the costs of health care for their current and retired workers, which right now add about $2,000 to the cost of each car.
While U.S. car makers are in extremis, most foreign auto companies are in big trouble as well. At a time when European governments are shoring up their own hard-hit auto industries, this nation can't afford not to do the same.
The future of our middle class depends on it - no matter what kind of car they drive.
The foundation of Western capitalism is the clear idea that companies exist to serve customers. If a company makes products that customers want to buy at prices that customers are willing to pay, then that company should thrive. Otherwise, that company deserves to die.
That idea has served us well since the beginning of the Industrial Age. But now, because some large household-name companies can't hack it in a changing marketplace, we're going to toss that idea out the window & replace it with an idea that Leonid Brezhnev & his Politburo chums would applaud: customers exist to prop up failing companies.
Say good-bye to free markets & say hello to the new Soviet Union.
The truth is that hourly wages for UAW members are comparable to those of non-union workers. The extra money includes the costs of health care, pensions and other compensation for millions of retired workers, which aren't in any way worker "earnings."
Then it is time for the UAW workers to pay their own health care. Other people all around the USA have already given up that benefit to survive. Does the UAW want to survive. If so, they need to act like it. Let the retirees as of Jan 1 2009 start paying their own health care. The pensions are fully funded so that is not part of the $81 per hour at GM. Stop the Jobs Bank immediately if not sooner. Start acting like a man about to go under for the last time. Same goes for the CEO and executives down to the guy in the mail room.
steve: But subsidies are also designed to prop up companies that are likely to fail even with the government subsidies. They're not limited to attracting new companies.
In which case, they are a waste of taxpayer money.
steve: And just because Nissan in Canton or Hyundai in Alabama hasn't failed yet doesn't mean they won't go the way of many of the biodiesel plants.
They weren't failing when they initially received the money, and they aren't failing as of this point - and they aren't asking for any handouts.
GM and Chrysler are going to fail, period. What Senators Specter and Dodd seem to miss - or prefer to ignore - is that these companies are not viable as presently constituted, with or without federal money. This aid only prolongs the inevitable. GM's "plan" for the future is essentially more of the same, with a few token concessions by the UAW and the elimination of Saturn. Big deal...and getting rid of Wagoner is another cosmetic move that will do nothing to cure GM's real problem - its toxic corporate culture that is steeped in "can't do" Detroit think. No wonder William Clay Ford, Jr., brought in an outsider to clean up Ford.
GM needs to shrink to the point where it can service about 15 percent of the American market.
If Chrysler is really viable, let its owner - Cerberus - rescue it. Cerberus has essentially gutted Chrysler of its capacity to develop new vehicles, as it planned to have Chrysler largely market and make vehicles designed by other companies. This plan is no longer viable, and Cerberus wants taxpayers to foot the bill to keep it running. Never mind that Cerberus has access to funds that it could invest in the company. It wants to use taxpayer money instead. Aren't Democrats supposed to be against that sort of thing...? :confuse:
And the idea that the collapse of GM and Chrysler will take the middle class with them is alarmist hysteria. It may take the UAW with them, but that is not our problem. The UAW is not the middle class, no matter how fervently its supporters want to believe that.
The truth is that hourly wages for UAW members are comparable to those of non-union workers. The extra money includes the costs of health care, pensions and other compensation for millions of retired workers, which aren't in any way worker "earnings."
These are still expenses to the company, so that's a distinction without a difference.
"Are they also giving cash to Tesla or Aptera for use in developing their products?"
The $25 billion they are tapping into was for just such alternatives. I doubt a penny goes to anything we will ever see on the street that resembles an alternative. So yes you are right it is sad. We prop up the old dead wood companies like GM and the bright new stars are left to burn out. It is an old tradition.
The United States has demanded that nations treat American companies on their soil the same way they treat their home-grown industries, a concept called "national treatment."
Slight problem: they don't, now do they? But that's OK, we never did either...we always treated the imports and transplants better. :shades:
A collapse of the American auto industry would mean the loss of 3 million jobs nationwide in the first year, according to the Center for Automotive Research, in Ann Arbor, Mich.
And it would mean layoffs and lower revenue for CAR as their main clients are the Big3; so you can believe them right?
Meet the new kinder, gentler & politically correct form of capitalism. Don't strain yourself trying to figure out the best way to give your customers what they want. Just bulk up your payroll until Congress & newspaper editorial writers decide that you're too big to fail.
What an improvement this is over the old business model, which forced you to actually satisfy your customers. (Too much work!) The new model is so much less demanding. Just get so big that the government is afraid to say no to your bailout demands.
I call it "free markets for the fuzzy-minded". Who said that Communism is dead?
The truth is that hourly wages for UAW members are comparable to those of non-union workers. The extra money includes the costs of health care, pensions and other compensation for millions of retired workers, which aren't in any way worker "earnings."
According to '62, the only retiree cost at the current time is health care and that goes away on 1/1/09. Pensions are fully funded. Do not know what "other compensation" means. On 1/1/09 GMs costs should be fully competitive if you believe this scenario. So why isn't the bridge loan only enough to tide them over to 1/1/09?
But that's OK, we never did either...we always treated the imports and transplants better.
Let's see - we put quotas on imports in the '80's because our local whiners couldn't handle the competition, so the transplants are our own doing. They built here to meet the *demand from US buyers*. Demand that would not be there if the PRODUCT from US makers was compelling. The problem is not imports, the problem is PRODUCT.
We tax import trucks coming into the US.
Saturn (a "new kind of failed car company") received tax breaks for their new plant.
And now we're giving low cost loans to the D3, but not the other 50% of auto manufacturers in this country.
The old sunk costs syndrome. My first experience with this was the Tellico Dam/Snail Darter case. Once everyone's attention was drawn to the project by the finding of the endangered species, it was clear that the dam was just a boondoggle that was going to ruin a good trout stream and kill tourism in the area.
But because it was mostly built by the time the courts ruled, public opinion felt it was necessary to continue throwing good money after bad. Heaven forbid you leave a pile of concrete behind as a monument to human stupidity (of course, they did anyway, but it's largely hidden behind stagnant water now).
What the heck are you talking about? GM delivers the best product for my needs and wants. If they did not, I'd have gone elsewhere. If GM and Chrysler fail, there IS NO OTHER car maker that can deliver for my wants and needs. I am not reckless and financially self-destructive enough to buy a European car and I'm not as blind and aesthetically challenged enough to drive an Asian import.
If GM and Chrysler fail, there IS NO OTHER car maker that can deliver for my wants and needs. I am not reckless and financially self-destructive enough to buy a European car and I'm not as blind and aesthetically challenged enough to drive an Asian import.
And we should keep them alive for that reason alone. :P
If GM and Chrysler fail, there IS NO OTHER car maker that can deliver for my wants and needs.
Fine. You can write your own check to GM if you want to. But don't pistol-whip the rest of us into going along with this fiasco.
Here's an idea. Why not make participation in the bailout strictly voluntary? Each of the Big 3 can set up a web site that will handle (a) cash contributions & (b) loans. If you want to simply give money to your favorite car maker, you can log on & supply your credit card number. Or, you can lend money in, say, $100 increments at a rate that will be set daily & displayed on the web site.
That way, those who really want to save the American auto industry can vote with their own dollars while the rest of us go on with our lives. That would be the truly American approach.
For many MANY years those transplants were getting subsidies from state governments, making it financially attractive to transplant themselves in the first place. Other than Saturn, that typically doesn't happen with the domestics.
The German manufacturers are asking for help from Germany. The Japanese are petitioning the Japanese government. Why is it that both of the above also get to petition the US government for US tax dollars? They can have them as soon as the German government bails out both BMW AND Opel.
Here's an idea. Why not make participation in the bailout strictly voluntary?
I already did that when i bought Ford stock at $1.95. To be honest, i think they SHOULD advertise something like that...I'm tempted to buy a BIT of GM too, but the only thing I think is worth saving over there is the Malibu and Cadillac.
bpizzuti: For many MANY years those transplants were getting subsidies from state governments, making it financially attractive to transplant themselves in the first place. Other than Saturn, that typically doesn't happen with the domestics.
The domestics receive subsidies from state and local governments, too. And not just in the case of Saturn.
They don't receive subsidies from the federal government or states to open new plants because virtually all of their new facilities have been built in Mexico. We aren't worried about subsidies given to the domestic automakers by the Mexican government on this particular thread.
When GM, Ford and Chrysler remodel or upgrade an existing facility in this country, they receive aid from state and local governments in the form of infrastructure upgrades, tax breaks, etc.
Ford, for example, received incentives from the state of Illinois and Chicago to retool the factory that produces the Taurus, Sable, MKS and Taurus X.
GM delivers the best product for my needs and wants. If they did not, I'd have gone elsewhere.
Great, but you are in a growing minority group. Even GM has said in an ad they are sorry about their substandard and unimaginative cars, but we are going to change things around.
Here is a simple solution: Ford had performed quite well considering, they have new models, enough cash to last a year, some innovative eco-friendly cars on stream. GM and Chryco should just fall into bankrupcy. Ford should manage their best lines, Cadillac, Chev, and Buick (need it because it is a huge seller in China), and probably Jeep and trucks from Chryco. GM and Chryco get shares in the new Ford depending on what they contribute. Bankrupcy will allow these 2 companies to close plants, make new union contracts, close dealerships etc. Government just has to baby one company through this mess, and the one company that did plan for the future should be able to survive. It will be called GOFOCO (GM, Ford, Chryco)
Or to save cash, why doesn't GM and Chrysler pay the first $800 of the week in cash to an employee, and the remainder in stock options at the current market price. If the company does well, they do well.
But more seriously I do think that GM and Chrysler should offer new stock that you could buy on their websites directly. I'm sure these 2 to 3 million workers (who might lose their jobs would buy some stock. If each one put up $1,500 on average, there is no need for the government to be involved. That seems pretty reasonable, if the option is to save your job.
Why haven't these 2-3 million people earning a living from the Big3, being a big part of the funding solution? Has the UAW approached their membership, or the supplier unions, or the retirees?
If each one put up $1,500 on average, there is no need for the government to be involved. That seems pretty reasonable, if the option is to save your job.
Why haven't these 2-3 million people earning a living from the Big3, being a big part of the funding solution? Has the UAW approached their membership, or the supplier unions, or the retirees?
Excellent point. The employees should think enough of the product and their jobs to invest in their future. I like it! Better than us poor saps picking up the tab for overpaid execs, unions that have demanded huge increases, and inferior products.
In case anyone cares, the original post was simply a cut and paste from on op ed piece in the Philadelphia Daily News. I believe, generally, when people do this they acknowledge the source as not to 'trick' people into thinking it is their actual thought product.
Here's an idea. Why not make participation in the bailout strictly voluntary? Each of the Big 3 can set up a web site that will handle (a) cash contributions & (b) loans. If you want to simply give money to your favorite car maker, you can log on & supply your credit card number. Or, you can lend money in, say, $100 increments at a rate that will be set daily & displayed on the web site.
That way, those who really want to save the American auto industry can vote with their own dollars while the rest of us go on with our lives. That would be the truly American approach.
Excellent, BRILLIANT idea!!!
Although, technically this has been going on for decades with people voting with their wallets and Big 3 market share plummeting year after year after year after year until finally they have to beg for money from DC.
'21 BMW X3 M40i, '15 Audi S4, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I call on all Americans to boycott all bailout companies. If the company has received, or even just requested a government bailout/loan/handout/whatever you want to call receiving tax payer money, then I call on all Americans to boycott their products, avoid purchasing their products and/or services.
All the goods will sit on the shelves or parking lots. The companies will eventually go bankrupt or the Gov't will have to REBAIL them out which in turn could lead to our Gov't going bankrupt and requiring a bailout from the Chinese so we can be the United States of China instead.
To that, I say good riddance to the bailout seeking companies as obviously my government representatives are not listening to the voice of the people when they say NO to all of the bailouts!!! Since the Senators and Congressmen won't listen to the people, maybe the gov't and bail out companies can hear our wallets, when we boycott them.
No to Big 3 vehicles. No to AIG Insurance. No to Bailout Banks including Citigroup/Citibank. No to bailout Investment Wall Street Firms.
BOYCOTT all of these companies and the US will be a much finer happier place in the years to come!
'21 BMW X3 M40i, '15 Audi S4, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
For many MANY years those transplants were getting subsidies from state governments, making it financially attractive to transplant themselves in the first place. Other than Saturn, that typically doesn't happen with the domestics.
I'm sure if Ford or GM were looking to build new plants in other states those states would compete for the jobs with incentives. The issue is that all the new Ford and GM plants were built outside this country. The states don't care where corporate headquarters is located, they just want to provide incentives to create jobs and business. I could turn it around and ask why the D3 didn't build any new plants in those states. Did they not want to create jobs in the US?
GM delivers the best product for my needs and wants. If they did not, I'd have gone elsewhere.Ford should manage their best lines
Don't kid yourself, Ford built a lot of crap too. This quality talk is all based on rather short term experience of Fusion, etc. Let's see how they hold up after the warranty expires before we decide Ford has fixed all of their quality and durability issues. Personally, my GM were better than my Chrysler products, and the Ford's were better than both of them, BUT the Ford's started having lots of repairs after around 50-60K miles. GM's problems and issues seemed to start around 40K and they also had more warranty issues prior to that. Conversely, my Honda and Toyota cars have had few problems even at 70K and when my Honda had a windshield washer leak after warranty, Honda replaced it because they felt it shouldn't have failed at that age. A friend of mine had a premature transmission problem on his Odyssey, Honda replaced it. The domestics tell you to basically shove it because its past the warranty even when its a known problem like GM manifold gasket leaks or Ford head gasket failures. No car is perfect, but which company would you rather do business with? I'll take the customer focused ones thank you. (...and don't tell me about Toyota engine sludge because its known that was a very small percentage of vehicles and if you proved you did the oil changes and maintenance, they replaced the engine even if it wasn't under warranty)
CNBC had a piece on GM last night. They interviewed a 30 year veteran at the Malibu/Aura Manufacturing plant. He blamed the state of GM squarely on management. UAW included IMHO.
Iococca says keep the current management to finish what they started. OK! Keep it going, boys!
Comments
Bailout could bring bankruptcy-like reorganization
The U.S. government’s proposed rescue package for the Detroit Three automakers is intended to help them avoid the potential devastation of bankruptcy. But some of the benefits of Chapter 11 reorganization might come as a part of the legislation, without all the drawbacks of a bankruptcy protection filing.
The companies will undergo a “restructuring process akin to bankruptcy reorganization,” according to a report by the Wall Street Journal. This includes renegotiating agreements with unions, suppliers, and creditors. The process would involve “fewer rigors,” and would have the government, not a judge, in control.
If the Congress passes the rescue package, the reorganization program would be managed by the ‘car czar’ appointed by the government. At this moment, it appears Kenneth Feinberg, who managed the 9/11 victims’ families’ fund, is likely to get that job.
In addition to orchestrating a possible reorganization of the Detroit Three, the ‘czar’ would also have to be informed of any transaction of $25 million or more and any “material change” in their financial condition. Lastly, the czar would have the ability to force any of the companies into bankruptcy if they fail in their duty to restructure and become viable.
Any effort to force reorganization of the Detroit Three in a Chapter 11-like manner should appease observers on both sides of the bailout debate. On the one hand, the Detroit Three won’t have the stigma of being bankrupt — something that could result in drastically lower sales. On the other hand, creditors, suppliers, and unions won’t be getting a free lunch.
I LIKE IT!
Regards,
OW
Told you in November, at least maybe Ford in spite of the family seems to be showing congress the other cheek yes that one not the one you think your book means
Yet so far, there is no talk of offering aid to Toyota, Honda, BMW or the other foreign automakers that have built factories on American soil, employed American workers and managed to make a profit doing so.
"If Japan was doing this, we'd be threatening billions of dollars in retaliation," said Jeffrey Garten, a professor at the Yale School of Management, who as under secretary of commerce in the 1990s was one of many government officials who tried in vain to get Detroit prepared for a world of international competition. "In fact, when they did something a lot more subtle, we threatened exactly that," referring to calls for import restrictions.
Garten said he was stunned by the scope of the intervention that Washington was now considering. "I don't know that we've seen anything like this since the government told the automakers what kind of tanks to make during World War II," he said. "And that was just for the duration of the war — this could be for much, much longer."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/09/business/09nationalize.php
For those that want a level playing field this will have to be addressed. The new administration is shaping up a lot like the Clinton administration. These comments are from that era. I don't see how we can loan money to GM and not to BMW. We are more likely to get the money back with interest from BMW. Protecting US workers does not mean UAW workers only.
Why weren't you equally vocal when your state handed out hundreds of millions in tax breaks to Mercedes-Benz, Hyundai, Honda and others to open plants there?
Let's compare apples to apples, please...
Those subsidies were designed to encourage those companies to build facilities in Alabama. They weren't designed to prop up companies that were likely to fail even WITH the government subsidies (as will likely happen with GM and Chrysler).
Mr. Albom conveniently forgets that GM, Ford and Chrysler have received that type of subsidy, too...they merely had to threaten to close a plant, unless state and local government ponied up tax abatements and infrastructure improvements.
He also apparently forgets the bidding circus that surrounded GM's Saturn announcement. States were falling all over themselves with generous incentive packages to encourage GM to locate the plant within its borders. I don't recall GM turning down the subsidies and incentives offered by Tennessee in exchange for its agreement to locate the Saturn plant there.
If Mr. Albom is against these subsidies - fine, I'm against them, too.
But let's stop pretending that only the the transplant operations have benefited from state and local government largesse with taxpayer dollars.
So color me unimpressed with this argument...
The simple fact is Chrysler is toast, and GM needs a pre-packaged bankruptcy to allow itself time to renegotiate its supplier and UAW contracts, and shed divisions (and the associated dealer groups).
The real reason this solution is being resisted is because it would eliminate dealers and require the UAW to REALLY renegotiate the contract, not offer the largely cosmetic "concessions" that it has so far put forth in this whole discussion.
Instead, we get hysteria and doom-and-gloom nonsense that will only prolong the agony.
It isn't 1953 anymore, folks. Charlie Wilson is long dead, and the GM he led has already joined him...too many people are still resisting the obvious.
There is still room for GM in the domestic auto industry, just not one that is burdened with this UAW contract, and one that offers the same basic vehicle through 3-4 divisions. GM needs to slim down to Chevrolet, Cadillac and maybe a combined Buick-GMC. It also needs to broom most of its top management. Anything short of this is a waste of time...
It happened here with Micron - lots of property tax breaks to try to keep them afloat, but it's anyone's guess if the local fab plant will survive.
This proposed aid package is only delaying the inevitable.
The Southern automakers didn't just get a one time gift of roads or sewer or other infrastructure. They got job training money and I bet there's still money out there to run people through the community colleges to train them to be autoworkers.
And just because Nissan in Canton or Hyundai in Alabama hasn't failed yet doesn't mean they won't go the way of many of the biodiesel plants.
Even though there are points of nimby-liberal nonsense (the phrase global warming is mentioned a little too often with the usual alarmist film stock/I'm not sure at what point hurricanes became "unnatural" and caused by global warming) there is a nerve-jarring factual observation of how GM operates. Ford does not go unscathed. The phrase "Sheer stupidity" comes to mind.
After playing the documentary make sure you play "Do you really want to get into this argument on camera?" in the bonus section of the dvd. It points out how ill-informed or naive some car buffs are.
I have one key question for my representative in D.C. on this bail-out and it's simply "Are they also giving cash to Tesla or Aptera for use in developing their products?"
Shameful.......
By Arlen Specter
U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania
The U.S. auto industry - for 100 years an icon of American productivity and industrial might - is on the verge of collapse.
The stakes couldn't be higher. Either the federal government steps in to provide emergency aid or Chrysler and General Motors say they may be forced into bankruptcy by the time a new administration takes office.
The consequences of such a failure, in my mind, require that Congress take a prudent risk and provide help to a beleaguered industry that has been a linchpin of the American economy for more than a century. The cost in jobs, lost productivity, and industrial infrastructure supporting the industry would be devastating.
Congress should intervene, but only with strong assurance that the car manufacturers have a viable plan for survival and turnaround. In the face of an angry, resentful public, the burden of proof lies with the industry. Congress will not throw good money after bad.
First and foremost, Congress must know whether there is a reasonable chance that a financial lifeline - in the form of bridge loans or other kinds of support - will keep the automakers afloat long enough to weather the current storm and start down the road to recovery. Substantial sacrifices by the automakers, labor, dealers, suppliers and creditors will be required.
Congress will examine the Big Three's plans for recovery and weigh their plausibility with the help of experts. The money, if it comes, is likely to be drawn from an existing $25 billion loan program meant to help the Big Three improve fuel efficiency. That money, in turn, would be replenished quickly, perhaps from the $700 billion Wall Street rescue package, which the incoming administration has said it will consider spending partly on the auto industry.
Last week, I convened a meeting in Philadelphia with top executives from the Big Three and their financial lending arms; labor leaders, local dealers and suppliers; and economists. The goal was to answer questions and allow them to state the case for government assistance.
The discussion was sobering. GM and Chrysler said they need cash this year. Ford said that if one company goes down, so would the rest.
The automakers face an uphill battle, though. The American taxpayer has a deep-seated aversion to bailouts, if judged by the reaction to the Wall Street rescue. Congress shares the public's skepticism. In our free-enterprise system, the market is supposed to determine the winners and losers.
The pressure to act quickly does not help. There is not time for regular order in Congress: introduction of legislation, committee hearings, debate, amendment, House-Senate conference. Congress should not rush to judgment, as it did with the Wall Street bailout, which was passed without time to fix the provisions that have provoked so much public anger.
But a failure of the automakers could be cataclysmic. Even the threat of bankruptcy poses risks. Who wants to buy a car, after all, from a company that may not be there tomorrow? Consumers will worry about warranties, service and resale.
This week in Washington, we will be searching for an answer in Congress or action by Treasury. If the automakers get government help, the next administration will have the challenging task of overseeing and enforcing the difficult concessions needed to return this troubled industry to profitability.
Yes it's sad that people can't see past the "well you got some for this, so I want some now too" attitude. To continue that means the government is going broke. I gguess Vinnmar doesn't want or need Social Security. Or I guess he thinks the government simply prints more, infinitely.
The fact is that the U.S. Treasury will probably get most of the money back that they are lending, and the companies that they are lending to have already made significant cuts since. Citi has laid off 50,000 employees - not Job banks, not ove rthe next 2 years. What is GM and Chrysler done since Oct.?
I think what the Bush admin. is asking is that the government only loan $ to companies that are viable in the long-run. That means GM and Chrysler need to reorganize BEFORE the loan, and not get the loan and then take months or years.
In order to do this GM should be calling in its suppliers, UAW, and dealer reps., and working feverishly 24/7 to rewrite their contracts and agreements. I still don't think the execs. "get it", and want to continue with business-as-usual with minimum change.
LETTING THE BIG THREE automakers fail - as they are in immediate danger of doing - would be playing Russian Roulette with the American economy, says Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd.
But the odds of the United States surviving a collapse of its domestic car industry aren't as high as all that. So, even if you would rather walk than ever buy an American car, you have a major stake in Congress providing bridge loans for GM, Chrysler and Ford. Unfortunately, the $15 billion House Democrats came up with over the weekend to tide over the industry - a special session this week could finalize it, at least until a new Congress and president can come up with a more permanent plan, comes from a fund that was reserved for developing more fuel-efficient cars. But there really is no alternative.
A collapse of the American auto industry would mean the loss of 3 million jobs nationwide in the first year, according to the Center for Automotive Research, in Ann Arbor, Mich. That includes not only the direct loss of auto-worker jobs, but indirect losses from the bankruptcy of industry suppliers and ripple effects in the wider economy.
Contrary to what senators from southern states with non-union, foreign automakers believe, that wouldn't be good news for them, either, since they are dependent on the same suppliers.
The loss of jobs would result in a drop in Social Security payments and income-tax revenues, and the government would lose at least $60 billion in the first year, almost double the $34 billion "ask" from the auto company CEOs who appeared before Congress last week.
Bankruptcy isn't a realistic option, either, since consumers aren't likely to buy cars from bankrupt companies, and the companies would go belly-up anyway. We can't risk that level of shock to our already-reeling economic system.
It's true that American auto companies have been guilty of near-criminal myopia over the years, and that their CEOs were tone-deaf as well, arriving on private jets to testify before Congress a couple of weeks ago.
But the vehemence of attacks, not only on the quality of American cars (most of which are comparable to foreign makes) and the alleged greed of the union workers who make them, reveal a not-so-veiled attempt at scapegoating.
Pennsylvania's U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, a member of the Senate Banking Committee who strongly supports making the loans, went so far as to call them "lies." Most egregious: the assertion that union auto workers earn $73 an hour in wages and benefits compared to $42 an hour paid to non-union workers making foreign cars.
The truth is that hourly wages for UAW members are comparable to those of non-union workers. The extra money includes the costs of health care, pensions and other compensation for millions of retired workers, which aren't in any way worker "earnings."
Concessions from the UAW and planned oversight of the proposed deal make this reasonable risk to take. But American cars will never be able to compete in the global marketplace until U.S. automakers no longer are burdened with the costs of health care for their current and retired workers, which right now add about $2,000 to the cost of each car.
While U.S. car makers are in extremis, most foreign auto companies are in big trouble as well. At a time when European governments are shoring up their own hard-hit auto industries, this nation can't afford not to do the same.
The future of our middle class depends on it - no matter what kind of car they drive.
That idea has served us well since the beginning of the Industrial Age. But now, because some large household-name companies can't hack it in a changing marketplace, we're going to toss that idea out the window & replace it with an idea that Leonid Brezhnev & his Politburo chums would applaud: customers exist to prop up failing companies.
Say good-bye to free markets & say hello to the new Soviet Union.
Then it is time for the UAW workers to pay their own health care. Other people all around the USA have already given up that benefit to survive. Does the UAW want to survive. If so, they need to act like it. Let the retirees as of Jan 1 2009 start paying their own health care. The pensions are fully funded so that is not part of the $81 per hour at GM. Stop the Jobs Bank immediately if not sooner. Start acting like a man about to go under for the last time. Same goes for the CEO and executives down to the guy in the mail room.
In which case, they are a waste of taxpayer money.
steve: And just because Nissan in Canton or Hyundai in Alabama hasn't failed yet doesn't mean they won't go the way of many of the biodiesel plants.
They weren't failing when they initially received the money, and they aren't failing as of this point - and they aren't asking for any handouts.
GM and Chrysler are going to fail, period. What Senators Specter and Dodd seem to miss - or prefer to ignore - is that these companies are not viable as presently constituted, with or without federal money. This aid only prolongs the inevitable. GM's "plan" for the future is essentially more of the same, with a few token concessions by the UAW and the elimination of Saturn. Big deal...and getting rid of Wagoner is another cosmetic move that will do nothing to cure GM's real problem - its toxic corporate culture that is steeped in "can't do" Detroit think. No wonder William Clay Ford, Jr., brought in an outsider to clean up Ford.
GM needs to shrink to the point where it can service about 15 percent of the American market.
If Chrysler is really viable, let its owner - Cerberus - rescue it. Cerberus has essentially gutted Chrysler of its capacity to develop new vehicles, as it planned to have Chrysler largely market and make vehicles designed by other companies. This plan is no longer viable, and Cerberus wants taxpayers to foot the bill to keep it running. Never mind that Cerberus has access to funds that it could invest in the company. It wants to use taxpayer money instead. Aren't Democrats supposed to be against that sort of thing...? :confuse:
And the idea that the collapse of GM and Chrysler will take the middle class with them is alarmist hysteria. It may take the UAW with them, but that is not our problem. The UAW is not the middle class, no matter how fervently its supporters want to believe that.
These are still expenses to the company, so that's a distinction without a difference.
The $25 billion they are tapping into was for just such alternatives. I doubt a penny goes to anything we will ever see on the street that resembles an alternative. So yes you are right it is sad. We prop up the old dead wood companies like GM and the bright new stars are left to burn out. It is an old tradition.
Slight problem: they don't, now do they? But that's OK, we never did either...we always treated the imports and transplants better. :shades:
I really have no idea. What country treats our companies worse than their own?
And it would mean layoffs and lower revenue for CAR as their main clients are the Big3; so you can believe them right?
Japan. Korea.
I don't know about Hyundai; just picked them 'cause they are in Alabama where the Senator is acting all high and mighty.
However ...
Bailout Watch 153: Subaru and Nissan Applying for D.O.E. Loans
Will anyone really be surprised if Hyundai, Mercedes and Toyota also get in line for federal funding?
What an improvement this is over the old business model, which forced you to actually satisfy your customers. (Too much work!) The new model is so much less demanding. Just get so big that the government is afraid to say no to your bailout demands.
I call it "free markets for the fuzzy-minded". Who said that Communism is dead?
According to '62, the only retiree cost at the current time is health care and that goes away on 1/1/09. Pensions are fully funded. Do not know what "other compensation" means. On 1/1/09 GMs costs should be fully competitive if you believe this scenario. So why isn't the bridge loan only enough to tide them over to 1/1/09?
Let's see - we put quotas on imports in the '80's because our local whiners couldn't handle the competition, so the transplants are our own doing. They built here to meet the *demand from US buyers*. Demand that would not be there if the PRODUCT from US makers was compelling. The problem is not imports, the problem is PRODUCT.
We tax import trucks coming into the US.
Saturn (a "new kind of
failedcar company") received tax breaks for their new plant.And now we're giving low cost loans to the D3, but not the other 50% of auto manufacturers in this country.
We sure do treat the imports better.
Human greed trumps both communism and free market capitalism.
The old sunk costs syndrome. My first experience with this was the Tellico Dam/Snail Darter case. Once everyone's attention was drawn to the project by the finding of the endangered species, it was clear that the dam was just a boondoggle that was going to ruin a good trout stream and kill tourism in the area.
But because it was mostly built by the time the courts ruled, public opinion felt it was necessary to continue throwing good money after bad. Heaven forbid you leave a pile of concrete behind as a monument to human stupidity (of course, they did anyway, but it's largely hidden behind stagnant water now).
See also - Vietnam.
If GM and Chrysler fail, there IS NO OTHER car maker that can deliver for my wants and needs. I am not reckless and financially self-destructive enough to buy a European car and I'm not as blind and aesthetically challenged enough to drive an Asian import.
And we should keep them alive for that reason alone. :P
Fine. You can write your own check to GM if you want to. But don't pistol-whip the rest of us into going along with this fiasco.
Here's an idea. Why not make participation in the bailout strictly voluntary? Each of the Big 3 can set up a web site that will handle (a) cash contributions & (b) loans. If you want to simply give money to your favorite car maker, you can log on & supply your credit card number. Or, you can lend money in, say, $100 increments at a rate that will be set daily & displayed on the web site.
That way, those who really want to save the American auto industry can vote with their own dollars while the rest of us go on with our lives. That would be the truly American approach.
Oh, yeah. I've thought of Vietnam many times during the past few months.
The German manufacturers are asking for help from Germany. The Japanese are petitioning the Japanese government. Why is it that both of the above also get to petition the US government for US tax dollars? They can have them as soon as the German government bails out both BMW AND Opel.
I already did that when i bought Ford stock at $1.95. To be honest, i think they SHOULD advertise something like that...I'm tempted to buy a BIT of GM too, but the only thing I think is worth saving over there is the Malibu and Cadillac.
The domestics receive subsidies from state and local governments, too. And not just in the case of Saturn.
They don't receive subsidies from the federal government or states to open new plants because virtually all of their new facilities have been built in Mexico. We aren't worried about subsidies given to the domestic automakers by the Mexican government on this particular thread.
When GM, Ford and Chrysler remodel or upgrade an existing facility in this country, they receive aid from state and local governments in the form of infrastructure upgrades, tax breaks, etc.
Ford, for example, received incentives from the state of Illinois and Chicago to retool the factory that produces the Taurus, Sable, MKS and Taurus X.
Great, but you are in a growing minority group. Even GM has said in an ad they are sorry about their substandard and unimaginative cars, but we are going to change things around.
Here is a simple solution: Ford had performed quite well considering, they have new models, enough cash to last a year, some innovative eco-friendly cars on stream. GM and Chryco should just fall into bankrupcy. Ford should manage their best lines, Cadillac, Chev, and Buick (need it because it is a huge seller in China), and probably Jeep and trucks from Chryco. GM and Chryco get shares in the new Ford depending on what they contribute. Bankrupcy will allow these 2 companies to close plants, make new union contracts, close dealerships etc. Government just has to baby one company through this mess, and the one company that did plan for the future should be able to survive. It will be called GOFOCO (GM, Ford, Chryco)
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
But more seriously I do think that GM and Chrysler should offer new stock that you could buy on their websites directly. I'm sure these 2 to 3 million workers (who might lose their jobs would buy some stock. If each one put up $1,500 on average, there is no need for the government to be involved. That seems pretty reasonable, if the option is to save your job.
Why haven't these 2-3 million people earning a living from the Big3, being a big part of the funding solution? Has the UAW approached their membership, or the supplier unions, or the retirees?
Why haven't these 2-3 million people earning a living from the Big3, being a big part of the funding solution? Has the UAW approached their membership, or the supplier unions, or the retirees?
Excellent point. The employees should think enough of the product and their jobs to invest in their future. I like it! Better than us poor saps picking up the tab for overpaid execs, unions that have demanded huge increases, and inferior products.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
FLOOR IT ON BIG 3 BAILOUT - Philadelphia Daily News Editorial
That way, those who really want to save the American auto industry can vote with their own dollars while the rest of us go on with our lives. That would be the truly American approach.
Excellent, BRILLIANT idea!!!
Although, technically this has been going on for decades with people voting with their wallets and Big 3 market share plummeting year after year after year after year until finally they have to beg for money from DC.
Chrysler does not deserve one penny.
GM doesn't look to deserve one dollar.
Ford doesn't really need the help, but is a sheep following the herd.
I call on all Americans to boycott all bailout companies. If the company has received, or even just requested a government bailout/loan/handout/whatever you want to call receiving tax payer money, then I call on all Americans to boycott their products, avoid purchasing their products and/or services.
All the goods will sit on the shelves or parking lots. The companies will eventually go bankrupt or the Gov't will have to REBAIL them out which in turn could lead to our Gov't going bankrupt and requiring a bailout from the Chinese so we can be the United States of China instead.
To that, I say good riddance to the bailout seeking companies as obviously my government representatives are not listening to the voice of the people when they say NO to all of the bailouts!!! Since the Senators and Congressmen won't listen to the people, maybe the gov't and bail out companies can hear our wallets, when we boycott them.
No to Big 3 vehicles.
No to AIG Insurance.
No to Bailout Banks including Citigroup/Citibank.
No to bailout Investment Wall Street Firms.
BOYCOTT all of these companies and the US will be a much finer happier place in the years to come!
I'm sure if Ford or GM were looking to build new plants in other states those states would compete for the jobs with incentives. The issue is that all the new Ford and GM plants were built outside this country. The states don't care where corporate headquarters is located, they just want to provide incentives to create jobs and business. I could turn it around and ask why the D3 didn't build any new plants in those states. Did they not want to create jobs in the US?
Don't kid yourself, Ford built a lot of crap too. This quality talk is all based on rather short term experience of Fusion, etc. Let's see how they hold up after the warranty expires before we decide Ford has fixed all of their quality and durability issues. Personally, my GM were better than my Chrysler products, and the Ford's were better than both of them, BUT the Ford's started having lots of repairs after around 50-60K miles. GM's problems and issues seemed to start around 40K and they also had more warranty issues prior to that. Conversely, my Honda and Toyota cars have had few problems even at 70K and when my Honda had a windshield washer leak after warranty, Honda replaced it because they felt it shouldn't have failed at that age. A friend of mine had a premature transmission problem on his Odyssey, Honda replaced it. The domestics tell you to basically shove it because its past the warranty even when its a known problem like GM manifold gasket leaks or Ford head gasket failures. No car is perfect, but which company would you rather do business with? I'll take the customer focused ones thank you. (...and don't tell me about Toyota engine sludge because its known that was a very small percentage of vehicles and if you proved you did the oil changes and maintenance, they replaced the engine even if it wasn't under warranty)
Iococca says keep the current management to finish what they started. OK! Keep it going, boys!
Regards,
OW