Was the Automotive Industry Saved?
"I would like to suggest that the automobile industry has not been saved, it has been transformed, at a cross road and if it returns to the old ways it will be unsustainable again."
Dear Editor:
Let us get the history straight before the talking points and spin enter the conversation. I ask you to read this comment to understand the whole story, then assess your own interpretation and let’s have an intelligent respectful fact based conversation on the big question of the day. What saved the auto industry?
The auto industry was in position to fail over many years, when they got into a cash strapped situation the house of cards fell. Ford made the hard decisions early on and was able to take the correct steps to avoid this dramatic failure. The auto industry has an unsustainable model of legacy costs they could not carry; the foreign auto company transplants established plants without legacy costs and ate the big 3’s lunch with major cost advantages which continue to this day.
GM and Chrysler were not able to get themselves in position fast enough when they finally accepted the fact that the storm was coming. They were facing the "cliff" and immediately needed more cash to survive; the cash was only going to keep the unsustainable monster going for months. That is when the government stepped in and gave GM and Chrysler some cash, the “bailout”. This was a temporary fix that did not address the long term problem.
Then a new president entered the picture and he decided to not let GM and Chrysler go under "court bankruptcy" because he said he was going to save the auto industry. His actions after that were to take it under "political bankruptcy" which means he protected a certain group from the normal effects of bankruptcy. GM and Chrysler did go bankrupt and many suppliers also went under and tens of thousands of people lost their jobs. To say they did not go bankrupt is disingenuous. The debate is; was “political bankruptcy” a better path than “court bankruptcy”.
The government then broke contract law, this is the contract that Secured Bondholders had that protect their investment, they paid extra for this status and the president took it away in one swipe. He said he was taking money away from the "Fat Cats" and giving it to the hard working middle class the union, these are the president’s words, not mine. Now these "Fat Cats" turned out to be police, fire and school teacher pensions and normal middle class people who lost everything. I know many of these people;
they are not what was portrayed.
Here is what happened under “political bankruptcy”. GM and Chrysler closed many plants and tens and thousands of people lost their jobs. They moved all of the bad operations into a holding company for liquidation and many auto suppliers went out of business with many more job losses. This is the same as normal bankruptcy, except for the group getting special treatment.
Let's look at Ford, they are the shining example of how a company can avoid disaster and thrive with hard work and tough choices with no government help. They did not get the same union contracts negotiated as GM and Chrysler because they were in better financial position. To this day they have a disadvantage to GM and Chrysler, but they still thrive. This example shows that free enterprise without government help works, this fact cannot be denied.
GM went through an IPO with much fanfare and priced to ensure the government was to get their full investment back. Well that has not developed yet and even in these boom times the stock is not rising anywhere near the levels to get our taxpayers investment back. GM is now liquidating assets in the holding company and you can see evidence in the many dealers that now sit empty and the assembly plant in Pontiac now being taken down. These same events happen in both “court” and “political
bankruptcy”.
Chrysler is now in position to be owned by Fiat, a foreign automobile company. When Fiat makes the final payment they will own over 50% control of the company then becoming a foreign car company. When that event happens we will no longer have the Big 3 we have been so proud of over the years, we will be the Big 2. Is this saving the auto industry, or giving it away?
I understand this is a very touchy subject here in our area; I personally have been effected by it due to my long automotive roots. I have had to make personal dramatic changes to survive just like many in our area. I would like to suggest that the automobile industry has not been saved, it has been transformed, at a cross road and if it returns to the old ways it will be unsustainable again.
I do not like “political bankruptcy”; it changed the rules to help one particular group. With this change the investors are sitting on the sidelines since they now understand that the investments they make under certain contracts can be changed with the political wind. I believe this is one of the major reasons why investment and job hiring is low throughout our country, it is called uncertainty. Investors sit on their money if things look uncertain.
Sincerely,
Daryl Patrishkoff
Chief Executive Officer
The Center for Professional Studies
Send letters to the editor to editor Kristin Bull at kristin.bull@patch.com
Erin
10:19 am on Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Daryl - You are so right that it’s important to get the facts and history right. You bring up some vital details in the beginning of your piece - including how GM and Chrysler put themselves in a terrible position long before the Great Recession.
However, you go awry in your 4th paragraph: “Then a new president entered the picture and he decided to not let GM and Chrysler go under "court bankruptcy" because he said he was going to save the auto industry. No, HE didn’t decide to save the auto industry, Bush initiated the Bailout in December 2008, the new president implemented the plan.
No court bankruptcy? The president’s plan was litigated throughout the federal court system — all the way to the Supreme Court, in the case of Chrysler.
“He said he was taking money away from the "Fat Cats" and giving it to the hard working middle class the union, these are the president’s words, not mine” Where/when does he say this? I’ve seen this quote, but it was definitely not in the context of the Auto Bailout. Please site specific source.
And you keep insisting that we could have managed just as easily through a “normal bankruptcy”. Yes, under “normal circumstances”, late 08- early 09 was not normal times.
RE: Ford, you’re right, they were better prepared but would have suffered terribly from supply disruption w/o the others being helped, would have = more job losses there cascading though this industry and others.
(continued...)
Erin
10:32 am on Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Part II - As we wade into the details of the Bailout, yeah, I totally agree, things could have been more equitable, unsavory choices were made. But here, I’ll quote from Streve Rattner (lead on Auto Task Force), : “I recognize the emotions surrounding the decision to give members of the United Auto Workers company stock in exchange for resolving their health care claims. But the courts were emphatic that what we did was legal, because we remained true to a core principle of bankruptcy reorganization: every stakeholder received more from our plan than if the companies had been left to go bankrupt on their own.”
You say it will be bad to end up with the Big 2. Would the Big 0 or Big ½ + a prolonged Recession/Depression have been better? It’s always easy to talk about an alternative treatment for a patient AFTER the patient has already been saved.
Lastly, “I believe this is one of the major reasons why investment and job hiring is low throughout our country, it is called uncertainty..” I think it’s a leap to say uncertainty in contract law is a major reason for a slow recovery. I think more investors would say uncertainty in the Euro crisis and ongoing Housing crisis has way more to do with it.
(cont'd)
Daryl Patrishkoff
10:52 am on Tuesday, February 28, 2012
I would not use Steve Rattner as a source since he was a political appointment and like all appointees, regardless of side they have an agenda to justify their actions. He cites it was legal to move the UAW in front of the secured, but what about the teacher, police, fire pensions? What was their right? When you break contract law you are choosing to trample on someone’s rights to take care of another, is this fair?
So a Big 2 is OK, I am not playing Monday morning quarterback; I was in the game when this was happening. They made the decision to give away Chrysler to Fiat when US companies were also bidding. Obama chose Fiat with our taxpayer’s money and overlooked many US companies who could have been successful. If you look at Fiat in Europe, they are not a stellar standing company and a very troubled track record.
When an administration breaks contract law and goes to court and says it was legal that gets all investors to pay attention. I know many investors, I am a small time one, and this definitely enters into the equation for an investment decision. This is a high risk factor and in this environment of the continual slamming of investors, companies, banks and other entities they will pause. That is a fact and you can see the pause everywhere.
Erin
11:10 am on Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Daryl - yeah, Rattner was a political appointee and I see your issue there. However, I felt confidence in using him as a source due to his longer history as a pragmatic, hard-core Capitalist and many years on Wall Street. He has a much stronger reputation as a "call it like it is" Capitalist, than a political crony. And he's invested a life long career in keeping that reputation.
Again, I don't like a lot of the details worked out. Agreed. Also, the Fiat thing was a big "Huh?" for me as well.
Daryl Patrishkoff
10:36 am on Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Erin,
I did say Bush gave the "bailout" money to GM and Chrysler as a fix, but this was temporary and not a plan. He did not make the "political bankruptcy" decision; he left that for the next president. What happens after that was Obama's plan which was very different from "court bankruptcy", and did not follow contract law. These actions were clearly on Obama.
Obama did say "Fat Cats" in the discussion about his move the “Unsecured” in front of “Secured”, he was justifying his action as playing Robin Hood. This was his response to the "Secured Bondholders" when they objected. When the truth came out it was a very different picture than what was portrayed.
Many suppliers did go bankrupt and the supply chain was disrupted in severe ways, they figured it out and found a way to continue without governmental intervention. This was a very bloody event and I was directly involved in many of these sad stories. Ford showed the way, but the government chooses a different path and took care of a special group.
How do I know this, I actually lived it and know the players and watched the many people lose their jobs and suppliers go bankrupt. I was intimately involved and know the history. I do not like it when people re-write history to fit their own agenda; I will stand up and say what really happen. With the facts people can make their own decisions, but the facts do not lie.
Erin
11:00 am on Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Daryl - just to be clear, you never mention Bush in this OP piece. You may have in prior pieces or comments.
The "Robin Hood" comment was directly from POTUS? In public? In private negotiations? I'm not questioning the veracity of the detials you lay out of how the final deal worked out, just the framing of the president's position/attitude. There's a distinction. As you say, we have to be careful not to re-write or spin history to fit a specific narrative/agenda.
I truly appreciate how you and many suffered through this process and your willingness to share your experiences. So many sad stories. However, I can't help but shutter to think of how many more sad stories there could have been.
Daryl Patrishkoff
12:00 pm on Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Erin,
In my OP piece I did not mention Bush or Obama's name. I referred to the original bailout as a temporary fix and this was under Bush, I then referred to the new president which is clearly under Obama. You are correct, I added the Robin Hood into the conversation in my response, this probably was not the best of words on my part.
Regarding the original bailout money I have very mixed feelings on whether this should have happen. As a fiscal responsible purist, I should be against it. As a person very close to the auto industry I want to see it happen, so I am being honest and feel I will not take a position. I guess this is why Judges get to recluse themselves from certain cases, or I am just being chicken!
My criticism of going through a "political bankruptcy" to protect one group over another is my biggest problem. This caused uncertainty and a will to do anything depending on the political wind.
The other area I see as risk is to return to the bad practices after the pain subsides. We see it in union statements, the OEMs and suppliers. I do not think this is a good thing.
That is why I believe failure has to have a heavy price, or we just expect poor decisions to be covered by the taxpayers. We have no more money to keep covering the poor decisions without accountability and are reinforcing a culture that is unsustainable.
Erin
12:50 pm on Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Daryl - got it, it just wasn't clear to me who/when you were talking about "That is when the government stepped in".
I totally have mixed feelings as well. And, given that people in general have a short memory once pain subsides, I too have real concerns about creeping old habits.
RE: the Robin Hood thing. I just want to be clear about actual statements and context with ANY candidate running. I think all the candidates have been victim to this. I found it disturbing this week with the Santorum college snobbery comment - clearly not what was originally said or in the spirit of the comment. The POTUS' full comment (2009 SOU) talked about trying to get at least 1 year certificates and apprenticeships as well, not just 4 yr college.
My fear is always that attempts to frame candidates as something they're not based on falsehoods only deepens the partisanship between citizens, and offers no solutions.
As you had mentioned in another posting, candidates who do this are hoping that people are lazy, not check the facts, and vote based on a manufactured images created through spin; not reality, not experience, not values or attitudes of the individual. I'm not talking specifically about you here obviously, I just want to be careful that me, you, anybody are not inadvertently layering unfair images on top of our discussions. It only weakens our arguments and lessens the ability to move the conversation forward.
Thanks again for your thoughts.
Erin
10:37 am on Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Part III - Although you bring up some key issues that I'm with you on (including hoping that GM/CHLR don't backslide to old ways!), on the issue of whether the Bailout was necessary Daryl, I’m going to have to disagree with you. Bush and then Obama were in the terrible position of having to triage a simultaneous banking, housing and auto collapse and were forced to make tough calls with little time to navigate. It’s called having the heavy mantle of being POTUS.
As always, thanks for your thoughtful conversation. With this, as with many of the nation's problems, we need to keep the converstaion going.
[I sourced some info from this OP/ED from Steve Rattner, long-time Wall Street executive and lead adviser on the Obama auto task force http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/opinion/delusions-about-the-detroit-bailout.html
Daryl Patrishkoff
10:56 am on Tuesday, February 28, 2012
I will not give them the break of dealing with other issues, you put things in place to competently handle all situations, this is not a reason for accepting failure, and it is an excuse. We need a turnaround from these policies and actions to return confidence to the economy and let the investors invest.
I too enjoy our conversations and hope I did not get too enthusiastic, this is very personal to me and my friends to let political spin describe what happen.
Thanks,
Terry
11:14 am on Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Daryl
Your summary is pretty accurate. The problems with the industry were created over decades. The financial crisis brought it to the cliff when funding became a critical issue. GM and Chrysler were headed for Chapter 7 liquidation, due to the inability to secure operating cash.
President Bush and then Obama both realized that allowing that to happen would create catastrophic consequences to the economy. It was simply good ROI to do the deal.
It was in fact a polical bankruptcy. The Obama administration allowed certain classes of creditors (unions) to get preferential treatment over the traditional Chapter 11 pecking order. In this case the Bondholders were cheated.
Ratner was correct in that the traditional Chapter 11 process would not have worked. There were no sources for Debtor funding of the bankruptcy. They were all tied up in the banking mess. The US Government was the only source. That said, the US Government could have funded this deal and let the traditional process work from there. They chose not to......
Terry
1:36 pm on Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Scott: I am a Romney supporter, but he was wrong on this one. What would NOT saving the Auto Industry cost? Without the bailout, there was NO opportunity for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. No-one could finance it. GM and Chrysler were out of operating cash within 90 days. It would have been a Chapter 7 liquidation.
It has been estimated that anywhere from 1-2 million people would have lost there jobs within weeks of their collapse. Not only all the employees of GM and Chrysler, but the ten's of thousands of employees at the thousands of suppliers. Bill Ford has even said that Ford would have likely failed as well, unable to secure parts from a supplier industry in collapse.
City and State governments having large auto presence would have been devasted by tax shorfalls. I don't like big government, but in this case the decision by Bush/Obama was the right one. .
Erin
1:50 pm on Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Terry - exactly the bottom line for me as well, as unsavory the process was, better than the devastation of the alternative.
Also incalculable in the "final cost of Bailout" - the Unemployment benefits, further foreclosures, and countless other benefits that 1-2 million people would be seeking - and all at once - overwhelming the system, locally, state and federal levels.
As Bush said a couple weeks ago - when all the experts in the world are in your office saying the world is ending - ideology goes out the window.
And since, we've been driven near the brink based ideological entrenchment instead of seizing those opportunities to make historic changes to move forward to sustainability. A place where everyone makes painful concessions. It can still be done.
Marty Rosalik
9:59 pm on Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Daryl: two things. First the contract law/laws broken. Please cite ANY code, section, or paragraph that can be looked up. The talk radio rhetoric is tiresome. Were "normal" procedures not followed... you bet. Broken laws... show me!
Second, Ford motor Credit recieved $15.9 Billion in SECRET from the Federal Reserve. To say Ford had NO government help is not quite true. The Fed was "the lender of last resort".
Scot Beaton
3:15 am on Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Marty, thanks for your comment... when we have these kinds of descussions let's get all the cards face up on the table... again thanks.
Daryl Patrishkoff
6:12 am on Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Marty,
When I speak of contract law being broken I am talking about the contract (a legal document between 2 parties) between the Secured Bondholders and the entity they invested in. These are the terms, conditions and rules in which are going to be upheld in the many events that can happen during the investment time.
In bankruptcy a Secured Bondholder is put in front of an Unsecured Bondholder and receives better payouts due to the value of their bond. This is the contract law that was broken by the administration and puts all investors on notice that due to political winds a president can change this.
My question of the OP ED is: Is it fair that the Unsecured (union) was placed in front of the Secured Bondholders? No one seems to want to answer this question.
Let's look at Solyndra, when the last wave of private capital came in to give more cash these bondholders were granted status in front of the government (taxpayer’s money) investment. If the administration was going to be consistent they would break that contract law and move them behind the taxpayer's money in the bankruptcy. Is this fair? Would they do it?
Secret money to Ford sounds like a secret. Never heard of it, any facts?
Marty Rosalik
9:47 am on Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Daryl you are the best straight man ever. To further expose the secret loans try this link to a site you may trust. Interesting who else in the auto buisness got tax payer money.
http://jalopnik.com/5704575/ford-bmw-toyota-took-secret-government-money
These loans totaling over $7 Trillion, many made before TARP and without congress even knowing were made public by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. So search "secret Federal Reserve loans" and see for yourself. Ther are plenty of sites like Bloomberg.com with related articles as well as government reports mandated by the act.
Back to bankrupcy laws. I make no counter assertions that one party was put in front of another secured party. I make no claim that it was right for the government to strong arm the process. I lost a ton in this debacle and if I can cite the actual law I may be able to seek redress. I did not read all my fine print so I don't know what the contract said. I can't produce it now either. Hard lesson.
If you or the other secured parties can produce the contracts, they are binding. So where are the law suits and criminal charges? I see this as a bad deal not a violation of law. I respect your position on the bankrupcy and won't push it further.
However, I trumped ya on the Ford money (goverenment help). Thanks straight man.
Daryl Patrishkoff
2:46 pm on Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Marty,
These were not secret loans. These were loans to all financial institutions during the banking crash. All financial institutions were in an agreement to take the government loans regardless if they needed them or not. This was done to protect a run at a particular bank that was in stress. All of the auto company’s financial institutions were in this group and dealt with as all other financial institutions.
Did you notice Ford Credit, GMAC, Chrysler Financial, Toyota Financial, BMW Financial and many others were all part of this deal?
The only secret was what financial institution needed the money, the Dodd Frank bill did not disclose this, and it was widespread known at the time. To this day we can see which financial institutions paid back their loans in full and which ones cannot, history can now show us who was distressed and who was not based on what happen to them.
GM and Chrysler as a manufacturing company (separate from their financial institutions) were given bailout money to continue manufacturing operations. Ford (separate from their financial company) as a manufacturing company did not take any money.
Regarding breaking the contract laws. Contracts are legal binding documents between 2 parties and not outlined in bankruptcy laws. The secured bondholders had a legal contract that was trampled on, that is the point of the OP ED. I ask once again, is this fair that a special group was moved in front of them?
Marty Rosalik
3:58 pm on Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Daryl, if the loans were not part of the original TARP and the institutions that recieved them fought so hard to keep details out of public eye... what do you call that if not secret?
I don't care to separate the financial arms of manufacturing companies. I saw these loans as necessary for the manufacturing sections to stay in buisness. Are you saying that bailouts are only appropriate for banks and financial institutions.
As for "trampled" contracts, yes I agree that happened and it was WRONG!. However without the "boiler plate" within those contracts there is NO proof. No evidence of breach has been provided here.
Finally the question of fairness. Nothing is fair. I had written and verbal contract with my employeer regarding pension. That is now gone! In their boiler plate is a clause that paraphrased means, "we make the rules and change them as necessary". So for 30 years I was told by my employeer I was in good shape. Now too bad sucks to be you. I ask you is that fair?
I don't believe in fair. It is just another "F" word. I believe in right and wrong regardless of whomever is involved. Trampling on one party to benefit another is wrong. Your political points of hurting bondholders to make the union happy is over simplified. Family owned dealerships in small towns were hurt. Some suppliers helped while others sacrificed. The UAW vs. bondholders is a good talk radio point but misses the total picture.
Daryl Patrishkoff
5:51 am on Thursday, March 1, 2012
You call my political points oversimplified, I do not. In reading the rules, regulations and terms you find it is very clear why people choose Secured and Unsecured Bonds. It is our government who choose to move the UAW in front of the Secured Bond investors and I am crying FOUL. Notice I did not say they moved all Unsecured Bond investors in front of Secured Bond investors!
Thank you for answering my question, “was this fair?” We both agree it was not fair and many people paid a high price because the UAW was treated special. Now I ask the question, “why was the UAW treated special?”
Daryl Patrishkoff
5:51 am on Thursday, March 1, 2012
Secured Bondholder - Bond backed by collateral, such as a mortgage or lien, the title to which would be transferred to the bondholders in the event of default. The most common form of secured bonds is mortgage bonds. These bonds are backed by real estate or physical equipment that can be liquidated. These are thought to be high-grade, safe investments, If an issuer in default has both secured and unsecured bonds outstanding, secured bondholders are paid off first, then unsecured bondholders.
Unsecured Bondholder –bond debt certificate that is typically required to offer a fixed rate of interest or annual sum until maturity. These bonds are generally either considered to be discounted or interest bearing, and are primarily issued by corporations or by the government. Unlike a secured bond, an unsecured bond is not backed by any collateral.
Investors in Secured Bonds get a lower rate of return due to the “Safety” of the bond. Usually conservative investors choose these types of investments to protect themselves and stay in for the long term. Each secured bond has its own legal contract that outlines these rules.
Investors in Unsecured Bonds get a higher rate of return due to the risk involved in the bond that is backed up by no collateral. Usually speculative investors choose these types of investments because of the high risk involved. Each unsecured bond has its own legal contract that outlines these rules.
Daryl Patrishkoff
5:56 am on Thursday, March 1, 2012
Marty,
There was and is no Secret, all of this was widely known at the time and the reason many people did not like the idea of a bailout of any industry. The TARP loans were part of the original bailout. The government put in the rule that they all had to take money so the troubled financial institutions were not exposed and people take all of their money out of those banks. The government also stated that the FDIC would back up people’s funds trying to bring calm to the situation. Only history will tell if this was a wise decision, so the debate continues.
I respect the idea that you do not care if manufacturing and financial entities should not be separate. However, the government set the rules that they are. The Dodd Frank bill takes it even further, this is the regulation they have to abide by and law. If you do not like this rule you must change the law.
I do not like bailouts, I am not supporting them doing it, however it is not my call. I see bailouts as a very slippery slope, once you do one everyone else gets in line and has a good reason why they should get one.
All I do know is the first bailout of this time was the financial institutions and our government thought they had to do it to avoid financial collapse, which is debatable.
Marty Rosalik
9:12 am on Thursday, March 1, 2012
Daryl the UAW ownership stake is certainly a hot button issue. From my perspective two things. First it was political. How is that not obvious? We can get mad about it but we can't change it. Second and very important in my mind, ovnership brings a much higher stake and therefore risk if they don't cooperate with GM management. Long term they need to be a true buisness partner. They need to help steer the boat, row the boat, or bail the water in the next economic storm. Their future, salary, pension, and benefits are now directly tied to company performance.
Just looking at the good perspective from a bad process.
Terry
11:49 pm on Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Here is a good link that outlines bankruptcy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_in_the_United_States
Bankruptcy is guided by a set of codes defined in Bankruptcy Law and managed by the Court. Chapter 11 is actually a chapter. Like any law, there is enough grey area to allow interpretation. I can't say that laws were broken in the GM case.
Standard practice and prescedents were shattered. Delphi white collar employee pensions were thrown under the bus, while there blue collar peers were protected. Bond holders were dropped in rank from their standard pecking order in favor of the UAW.
It is hard to believe the Presdent wasn't showing favoritism to his voting base. The long term risk would be whether bond holders would begin to lose faith in the system (companies need them) or assume this was an anomoly,
Daryl Patrishkoff
7:27 am on Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Terry,
Great link and it outlines the bankruptcy law and how it works. It is very clear of the paths one can choose when they file and they declare using the Chapters.
When I speak of contract law being broken it is not listed in the chapters in bankruptcy. I am speaking of the contract between the investor and the entity who receives the investment (a legal binding document) which outlines the terms and conditions of the investment. Secured have one status and Unsecured have another status to their legal contracts. This is the contract law that was broken to take care of a special group.
In any investment whether it is stock, shares, venture capital, and many others the contract signed clearly outlines what happens in the good and bad events that may come in the future. This is to have a total and clear understanding of the risk and give certainty of outcome for the investor whether it is a good or bad event.
A smart investor takes a good hard read of these terms and conditions so they understand the rules. All I am saying is these rules were changed on the political winds, by this change a special group was moved in front of another.
The whole point of the OP ED was to ask the question, was this fair? Not many have answered this direct question, all I see is talking points and portraying my OP ED as not supporting the bailout.
Steve Lawrence
1:03 am on Wednesday, February 29, 2012
GM has already fallen back on their old habits. They have been talking to Peugeot about some kind of partnership. Some say they are trying to save Opel. I was a Chevrolet owner for 35 years. Not any more. They just can't figure it out.
Scot Beaton
2:03 am on Wednesday, February 29, 2012
So…how much did the auto bailout really cost us taxpayers?
President Obama will continue to herald the recovery of the U.S. auto industry and the success of the $80 billion financial bailout his administration sponsored for GM and Chrysler. "If any of the Republicans running for president now had been president in 2009, auto workers wouldn’t be on the assembly line today, they'd be on the unemployment line," White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer. But saving the auto companies from bankruptcy, and preserving thousands of American jobs, has cost taxpayers at least $14 billion, according to several estimates by government agencies and independent groups. To put it in perspective, $14 billion is double the annual budget of the Transportation Security Administration, or roughly two months of operating expenses for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, based on 2010 figures. The Treasury Department announced that it sold its stake in Chrysler, which is owned by Italian automaker Fiat, resulting in a $1.3 billion loss. "As Treasury exits its investment in Chrysler, it’s clear that President Obama’s decision to stand behind and restructure this company was the right one," Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said, citing the company’s rebound. The government has yet to recoup roughly $27 billion from GM, although it holds 500 million shares in the company’s stock. to be continued
Scot Beaton
3:02 am on Wednesday, February 29, 2012
The value of that stock when the government sells it will determine just how much taxpayers stand to lose. At its current price, the stock is work roughly $15 billion, meaning a potential $12 billion loss. But don't expect the price to jump anytime soon, experts say, despite the new profitability of the business. "The primary reason the stock isn't doing well is because the market knows the shareholder –- Treasury -– wants to dump 500 million shares," CATO Institute analyst Dan Ikenson said. "No one wants to buy the stock knowing that there's going to be this huge sale. So, it's suppressing the price." Calgary Herald estimates that bailout cost $474,000 per GM employee.
Those are the facts. Now here's my opinion (its important when one writes an OP-ED you don't confuse the two.) the Detroit Auto Companies invented the auto industry. Ford was founded June 16, 1903. Chevrolet Founded on November 3, 1911. Toyota Motor Corporation was founded by Kiichiro Toyoda in 1937. Daryl now you don't have smarter then a 5th grader to figure this one out. The Detroit big three have been around for a long time, and have been strapped with long term legacy costs. They as a group were doing their best to stay competitive in a world market. Then came Great Recession of of 2008-09, and guess what Daryl, people stopped buying cars; what a surprise. to be continued.
Scot Beaton
3:05 am on Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Well when circumstances beyond your control prevent you from selling your product you go out of business! Doesn't matter Democrat or Republican... so so tired of the BS... if the Government had not bailed out the great American car industry over 1,000,000 million jobs would have evaporated just our great lakes region alone. Daryl was it your plan to put all those Americans on welfare? And please let's get off the voodoo trip that other American companies would a saved GM... this was the Great Recession of of 2008-09 the money was not there. Daryl what was GM to do call up the King of Saudi Arabia... I can see that ad campaign now, by our cars from a King that won't even let women drive in his kingdom. Darly your OP-ED is full of partisan rhetoric, not helpfull in the healing of America. As a longtime southeast Michigan resident I'm very thankful that both political parties who worked together and pulled the great american car industry through a mess, wall street created in the housing industry.
P.S. Fiat car company has the lowest customer satisfaction rate in Europe. I'm certain there are a lot of brilliant minds in Auburn Hills Michigan that can help the Italians turn that image around. I personaly thank the Italians... also again there wasn't an American company that wanted Chrysler, and keep it Chrysler. Daryl no thanks for your OP-ED.
note: I went backed and fixed a few of my typos very sorry to mix up the order of the conversation... I won't do it again.
Daryl Patrishkoff
6:19 am on Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Scot,
The OP ED does not say we should have let the auto industry fail and you seem to think I am putting in partisan issues. I am asking questions and expecting accountability to the administration, I expect this regardless of the political party they belong to.
In bankruptcy a Secured Bondholder is put in front of an Unsecured Bondholder and receives better payouts due to the value of their bond. This is the contract law that was broken by the administration and puts all investors on notice that due to political winds a president can change this.
My question of the OP ED is: Is it fair that the Unsecured (union) was placed in front of the Secured Bondholders? You seem to avoid this question every time, how about an answer. In the OP ED I answered that I did not agree with this move.
Let's look at Solyndra, when the last wave of private capital came in to give more cash to the failing company these bondholders were granted status in front of the government (taxpayer’s money) investment. This was a first! If the administration was going to be consistent they would break that contract law and move them behind the taxpayer's money in the bankruptcy. Is this fair? Would they do it?
Erin
3:24 pm on Thursday, March 1, 2012
"Chrysler Sales Increase 40%"
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-01/chrysler-sales-rise-tops-estimates-as-gas-prices-lift-demand-for-200-sedan.html
Whoa, that is quite a Clint Eastwood bump! ;-)
Scot Beaton
5:08 pm on Thursday, March 1, 2012
Erin, and Clint Eastwood is not even Italian... LOL
Al
4:25 pm on Saturday, March 31, 2012
Mr. Patrishkoff, thanks for your OP-ED. It is refreshing to read a rational and objective opinion about this issue. Thanks for mentioning Ford which did not need to be "saved". The US auto industry did not need to be "saved"; it is sad that so many choose to ignore the government double standard regarding contract law, and that taxpayers money was used to bailout the FAILING PART of the US auto industry (GM & Chrysler). It is obvious that many of the comments ignoring and distorting the content of your OP-ED are just emotional partisan noise from people that does not understand the dynamics of the free market. Ford is a great example of how our free market works with the right private leadership. Thanks again for your well informed opinion.. . . . Q: Is it fair to assume that WITHOUT bailout money, GM and Chrysler would have gone down, but some American or foreign company would have come in to buy them, may be Fiat? hahaha. . . .COMMENT: Our government has not cash, it borrows money in the name of taxpayers, and WE the taxpayers will have to pay back that money plus interest eventually, by then the president as his predecessors will go back to his homes/mansions to enjoy his millions, yes they all are millionaires regardless of party (the only difference is that some made their money in the private sectors and others made it in the public sector), and NO I am not calling him a "Fat Cat"
Scot Beaton
5:13 pm on Saturday, March 31, 2012
Al,
Did you even take the time to read the other comments? For staters Ford did receive all kinds of tax dollars.
Daryl Patrishkoff
6:43 pm on Saturday, March 31, 2012
Scot,
Again you did not read the comments. Please read all of the comments and get the facts straight before you add you comments, you seem to be stuck in your opinion and forget about the facts. You did not live this event; I did, so you cannot continue to twist the facts to match your version. I know and understand the real story and events, I lived them.
As stated above, Ford Credit (a bank) had to take TARP money just like all the banks did because they wanted to hide who was at risk and who was not. Ford Credit is a separate entity following the rules as a bank, not the manufacturer.
Now let's take a look at who went under in the banking industry after time has passed. GMAC went under, and then reorganized after bankruptcy as Ally Bank; they went under because they got into the mortgage industry and went down with that industry. Ford Credit did not!
So the idea they took money is wrong, the manufacturing part of Ford did not take any money and succeeded without government intervention, and government taking care of their friends in the bankruptcy. Ford Credit did not go under, but had to take money like all the banks to hide the ones that were at risk.
So again, Ford is the shining example that capitalism works during the same time and circumstances when GM and Chrysler did not do it alone and use the government to politically make decisions to help their political friends.
Daryl Patrishkoff
6:50 pm on Saturday, March 31, 2012
Al,
Thanks for your comments, yes plenty of people keep twisting the facts and spin it as saving the auto industry. We, the auto industry went through bankruptcy, but GM and Chrysler went through "Political Bankruptcy" which took care of a special group and had them miss the pain.
I do know that American companies tried to purchase Chrysler, but somehow our president thought it was right to give it to a foreign company (Fiat) at the tax payer’s expense and somehow called it saving the company. It was giving it away to a foreign company and we lost money on the deal.
I know this because I lived through these events; plenty of people commenting on here did not, but have a political agenda and are using spin to change the facts.