GM: Bankruptcy Is Not A Viable Option

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

TOM KRISHER | November 22, 2008 05:33 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »

DETROIT — General Motors Corp.'s board of directors does not consider bankruptcy protection a viable option to solve the company's financial troubles, but it has discussed Chapter 11 because it has a legal duty to do so, a spokesman said Saturday.

Century-old GM, an icon of American manufacturing, has been battered by a plunge in car sales as American consumers tighten their belts and shift away from the big moneymaking pickup trucks and SUVS that have long the staples of GM's lineup.

GM, which has slashed jobs and closed plants since early in the decade, has warned that it could run low on cash by the end of the year unless it gets a taxpayer-funded rescue from the government.

"The board has a responsibility to keep all options open considering the circumstances," said Vice President of Communications Tony Cervone. "Chapter 11 protection is not a viable option because it doesn't fundamentally address the issues at hand today."

The board, which has been meeting regularly by teleconference since the company's finances worsened, agrees with Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner that bankruptcy would be disastrous for the company, Cervone said. Wagoner has said it would scare away customers who would not make a big-ticket purchase from an automaker that is under court protection.

Instead, Cervone said the board supports Wagoner's strategy to seek congressional approval of low-interest government loans, getting the company through its liquidity problems until the U.S. auto market recovers and it can be profitable again, Cervone said.

"The board continues to support management and has continued to express support for management," Cervone said.

But industry analysts say the board has to prepare for bankruptcy if the government doesn't come through with loans in time, and even with a loan if the U.S. auto market doesn't recover in the next year or so.

Story continues below
advertisement

The board probably believes in the company's plan to get government help and survive, but members with financial knowledge also know that they need to explore the bankruptcy option because of GM's huge cash burn, said Kevin Tynan of New York-based Argus Research Corp.

"It may be the best way to go, and they may find that out. They may not have a choice," he said. "The cash is what keeps you in business."

Erich Merkle, auto analyst with the consulting firm Crowe Horwath LLP, said the board has to plan its next move in case Congress doesn't come through with a loan quickly.

"The decision isn't really theirs to be made," he said. "Unfortunately it's Washington's decision. They either get this bridge loan or they have to prepare for the bankruptcy filing."

Without loans, the board likely would seek bankruptcy protection and then ask the government to provide debtor-in-possession financing, Merkle said.

Wagoner, in testimony to the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday, said that independent research shows 80 percent of consumers would not consider buying a car from GM if it were in bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy experts say the company may not be able to pay all its bills, and that some parts suppliers may start demanding cash from GM upon delivery. GM, though, may be able to negotiate terms from suppliers whose fates depend largely on the company's success.

Wagoner, Ford Motor Co. CEO Alan Mulally and Chrysler LLC CEO Robert Nardelli appeared before Congress this week seeking $25 billion in low-interest loans, but were drubbed by criticism from members of House and Senate committees.

Instead of leaving Washington with a commitment for the bailout loans, the three headed back to Detroit empty-handed, rebuffed by lawmakers who were upset that the trio flew to the nation's capital in separate private jets to ask for aid. Lawmakers also criticized the CEOs for appearing without a solid plan and for allowing high labor costs that put them at a disadvantage with their Japanese competitors.

In a letter to the auto executives released Friday afternoon, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid demanded a detailed accounting by Dec. 2 of the companies' financial condition and short-term cash needs, as well as their plan to achieve long-term viability.

The Democrats also called on the automakers to show how they would ensure that the government would be reimbursed and share in future profits, eliminate dividends and lavish executive pay packages, meet fuel-efficiency standards, and address their health care and pension obligations if they get the federal help.

The Bush administration sharply criticized the Democrats for departing Washington for a congressional recess without acting on a rescue for the car makers.

GM is considered by many to be in the worst financial shape of the three automakers. The company spent $6.9 billion more than it took in during the third quarter and has warned that it could reach the minimum amount of money needed to run the business by year-end.

GM already has cut expenses and has delayed for two weeks reimbursements to dealers for sales incentives such as rebates.

GM shares closed Friday at $3.06. They have withered since peaking near $94 in 1999 and 2000, and they have lost 93 percent of their value from $43.20 as recently as October of 2007.

DETROIT — General Motors Corp.'s board of directors does not consider bankruptcy protection a viable option to solve the company's financial troubles, but it has discussed Chapter 11 because it ...
DETROIT — General Motors Corp.'s board of directors does not consider bankruptcy protection a viable option to solve the company's financial troubles, but it has discussed Chapter 11 because it ...
 
Comments
292
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next › Last » (7 pages total)

Here is an article from me about helping the big three auto makers:

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-151338

About a need for more electric, hybrid cars, refueling stations for these automobiles to get these automakers making profits.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:01 PM on 11/25/2008

Just saw this article: http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/770/auto-industry-planning-car-pool-to-washington/;_ylc=X3oDMTFic2FhcnFsBF9TAzI3MTYxNDkEc2VjA2ZwLXRvZGF5BHNsawNkZXRyb2l0LWNhcnBvb2w-

So, these guys are planning to drive to DC next trip! What a joke. They need to dump ALL their jets, corporate apartments, Four Seasons hotel stays, chauffeurs, and other excesses NOW. It"s time to trim the fat. The idea of using them for their "security" no longer flies! Until they made fools of themselves last week on Capitol Hill I doubt the majority of us would have known who these guys were if they"d fallen on us. These guys and their entourages need to start flying with the masses. Nothing justifies the continuation of excessive compensation packages and perks enjoyed by CEOs, boards and their executive teams in the auto or any other industry. It"s high time they all get real and take their heads out of their *****. I worked for a very large, global corporation that had two corporate jets. Don't let anybody kid you; their use was for the convenience of the Board and corporate officers. However, when the company saw declining sales on the horizon, they got rid of the jets, closed offices, and took other cost-cutting measures that were necessary to stay profitable. Nobody bailed them out!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:03 PM on 11/24/2008

Ha! That's what Circuit City said before they went down that road. Good luck GM.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:34 PM on 11/24/2008

Why doesn"t the United States automobile industry raise enough extra money to develop a turbine engine, and then use that engine to make itself into the world's most successful automobile industry?

Wouldn"t this make good sense both politically and economically?

Wouldn"t this lead to more automobile exports and less imports? Turbines can run on bio-fuels that cost much less to produce than alcohol. Wouldn"t this economic advantage create a booming farm industry?

Turbines are much lighter. Wouldn"t this translate into much greater fuel efficiency? Wouldn"t the move to bio-fuels coupled with higher fuel efficiency reduce United States dependence on foreign oil? Wouldn"t this reduce automobile imports and increase exports? Wouldn"t this reduce the trade deficit?

Wouldn"t a booming automobile industry and a booming farm industry create jobs? Wouldn"t this drive the rest of the United States economy?

Wouldn"t all of this elevate the return on investment? Wouldn"t all of this reduce the risk? Isn"t this a more sellable investment idea?

This idea is presented in more detail on www.economic-plan.com.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:15 AM on 11/24/2008

A turbine engine? How many thousand hp do you need? Gas turbines below at least a couple thousand hp are hopelessly inferior to piston engines in terms of efficiency. It says so in every engineering textbook on the subject.

:-)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:00 PM on 11/24/2008

Chrysler tried that for almost 50 years. Gas-turbine engines have two key flaws: heat and fuel economy. Turbine engines get much worse fuel economy than piston engines.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:49 PM on 11/26/2008

Throw out the whole board to start with. Then, ......

Here is the type of plan Congress should consider >

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/11/solution-for-detroit-gm-friends.html

Trying something outside the box like this, is the only way to save the U.S. Auto Industry.

There is much creative talent hidden inside the U.S. Big 3 that has been smothered by mismanagement and the UAW. ... and they actually "make" something, .... unlike Wall Street. Detroit deserves saving.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:53 AM on 11/24/2008
- CC1 I'm a Fan of CC1 permalink

It's GM's OWN fault. If they had put emphasis on energy-efficient vehicles that sell for under $30-40k apiece, then maybe everyday hardworking Americans would be buying more of them.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:53 PM on 11/23/2008

As an ex-pat American living in Japan, I really can't agree that the Big Three's problems are all of their own making. Take a look at these statistics from May of this year: the Big Three's combined share of the American market is only 44.4%, Asian car makers have a combined market share of 47.8%, but when you break that down by nationality you find that Japanese makers have a 42.5% share of the American market. If you plotted a graph showing the steady increase of Japanese maker's market share against the steady decrease in that of Detroit over the last 35 years, the resulting lines would be virtual mirror images of each other.
It's not that Detroit has failed, it's that Japan has succeeded.
One tricky thing Japan does to promote its own car companies is the "Shaken system." I complained about this system to a Toyota mechanic, saying that it should be abolished. His reply was, "No, we can't do that! That's where most of our profit comes from."
In Japan, the sale of a car is the gift that keeps giving, ultimately to the manufacturer. Whichever compayn sells the most cars gets the most money from this system, and of course domestic makers sell the most cars, especially Toyota. Therefore, one huge advantage Japanese car companies have over those of other countries is that they have a lot more capital to work with from the steady income from the shaken system.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:02 AM on 11/24/2008

Sorry, I had to severly edit my first post to get it down to the 250 word limit and in the end didn't explain what the "shaken" system is.
FYI, all car owners in Japan are required by law to have certain designated parts replaced on their cars every two years. The criterion for replacing these parts is not their condition, but rather the fact that they are on the list of parts to be replaced. You can have the shaken done at an unaffiliated garage, but almost everyone has it down by the dealer. What this means is that every driver in Japan is subsidising the company of the car they drive, to the tune of about $1,500 to $2,000.
The Clinton administration put pressure on Japan to reform this system and managed to get a small concession for consumers. We don't have to have a shaken done for the first three years on a new car, but then every two years for as long as we have the car.
The shaken system is only one example of how Japan endeavors to give domestic companies an edge of foreign ones.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:28 AM on 11/24/2008
- CC1 I'm a Fan of CC1 permalink

In the numbers arena that would make sense to say that it is not entirely GM's fault. Living in Japan you can look at it from a different point of view. Thanks for your input, those are some interesting facts :)

However from my point of view, GM, Ford and the other domestic automakers have put too much emphasis on expensive, low-MPG cars, trucks and SUVs that are very expensive to both own and maintain. If they had put forth the same effort into practical, energy-efficient vehicles that are affordable to the average working American they might not be in such a mess, or would at least have more support from the general public. I think it's a wake-up call to them - Americans are beginning to think like the rest of the world in demanding more efficient transportation.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:34 AM on 11/24/2008


I beg to differ.

It's really not the number of sale, or share of market. relying the stats you quoted, 44.4& and 42.5%, there may not be substantive difference. The more substantive question should be: Why would the Big3 sell cars if they lose money on every sale ?

That makes your "shaken system" irrelevant.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:49 AM on 11/24/2008

CC1--Hogwash. The dumb sheeple seem to buy into this line of baloney despite how obviously idiotic it is. Toyota, Nissan, Honda, they all manufactured just as many gas guzzlers over the past 10 years and rushed to do so. Tundra, Tacoma, FJcruiser, LX series, RX Series, GX Series, Highlander, Sequoia, Landcruiser, Armada, Pathfinder, Frontier, Titan, Ridgeline, Pilot... the list goes on and on.

The only thing the big three failed at which Toyota and their ilk did better was pr and marketing tpo copnvince the sheeple to look the other way and stick their head in the sand.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:50 AM on 11/24/2008
photo

Oh, and build a far superior car. Forgot that little detail.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:22 PM on 11/24/2008

Actually, Toyota made a profit. That's the one and only thing that counts.

:-)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:01 PM on 11/24/2008

Agreed. There is a very good plan proposal on conditions for the big 3 to receive a bail out,
http://www.economicpopulist.org/?q=content/new-deal-big-three

A New Deal for the Big Three. He goes over a series of points as well as the lack of conditions for the financial bail out.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:27 PM on 11/23/2008

If the government wants Detroit to plan for efficient cars, then government should apply the 'stick' for driving efficient cars. The tax on gas should be raised until the price of gas is $10 a gallon. Until this happens, nobody will want to drive around in a small, efficient car. We don't want the situation in which Detroit build cars that nobody will want to drive.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:36 PM on 11/23/2008
- Paul I'm a Fan of Paul permalink

Exactly.

Only tax imported oil to raise the price of gasoline.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:32 PM on 11/23/2008

Actually, if you were to tax oil imports higher than US oil, you would virtually guarantee that US oil would run out faster and oil everywhere else in the world would be cheaper (because we would import less). If you truly hate your country, that would be just the way to show it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:09 PM on 11/24/2008

The front page headline for this article says, "More Business GM: Bailout Not A Viable Option...". It should say Bankruptcy, not Bailout.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:23 PM on 11/23/2008

The tragedy of 21st century America may turn out to be doing the unthinkable after failing to think of the unthinkable.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:52 PM on 11/23/2008

Would it make sense for GM to break apart into a few different companies?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:43 PM on 11/23/2008

Thats what SHOULD occur, but i doubt it will.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:32 PM on 11/23/2008
photo

The new companies would no longer be too big to let fail.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:11 PM on 11/23/2008

They also wouldn't live very long because none of them would have all the resources to make cars.

:-)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:09 PM on 11/24/2008
photo

I have one word also echoed on MTP this morning.

NUMMI

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:20 PM on 11/23/2008

For all of you still bashing the 3 CEO's for flying to Washington on their private jets, the reason Alan Mulally did was because his company (FORD MOTOR) is sitting on $19 billion, because they did see ahead. He is in Washington basically for his suppliers, who would be forced to close up shop if GM and Chrysler do not get these loans. If you would have noticed the proceedings instead of bashing the Big 3 and the UAW as a whole like sheep, you would have seen Mr. Mulally trying to distance himself from the other two companies.

One thing I find amusing in all of this is that the farmers have had one of their best years in a long time and they are snatching up new trucks...so much for gas mileage LOL

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:50 PM on 11/23/2008

Did you catch the part where this article was about GM? And just why shouldn't the UAW bear part of the blame? They held these companies hostage until they got terms that could only be met if high profit margin SUVs remained popular.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:13 PM on 11/23/2008
photo

That's right, the UAW runs the big three, I forgot!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:39 PM on 11/23/2008

Why does everyone get so angry at unions for getting workers $$$ and benefits that allow them to raise their families in a comfortable way? What people need to be talking about is why the rest of us don't have this kind of luxury. And if national health care does actually go through, it would save corporations money on health care benefits. Do you really think they will pass that savings onto the worker? I don't!

CEO's and executives make huge paychecks off the sweat of the worker!!! We should all be so lucky to make a good living wage, but for 95% of the population our salaries have increased an average of $492 a year in the last 8 years, while the salaries for 5% have gone up an average of $60,000 a year!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:55 AM on 11/24/2008

This doesn't surprise me, of the Big Three, i've felt Ford deserves to be saved, they did wisen up, albeit a bit late, and their plan for the future of selling their European small cars makes sense, neither of which can be said for the other two. I'd really like to see someone write an article that doesn't lump all three together.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:47 PM on 11/23/2008

The Board is part of the incompetence at the top at GM. They, like the executives, need to be fired for gross mismanagement and replaced with a competent board and executive team. They can pretend that they are too big to fail and continue to try and extort the taxpayers, but they will not get any support for this tactic. Bankruptcy is no longer an option, it is a fact. And to get a dime of taxpayer money, the government should appoint a conservator to make the changes that this company has avoided. I recommend Paul Krugman for the job.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:18 PM on 11/23/2008

IF the US GOV supplied funds for a buyout instead of a bailout, we could take over the board, replace the management, control the retooling, protect the suppliers, ride out the current credit crunch and consumer panic, return the company to profitability, and sell off the shares aa profit.
At $3 a share, how much would controlling interest cost?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:02 PM on 11/23/2008

"At $3 a share, how much would controlling interest cost?"

A fraction of the bailout. But all you would be doing is to buy worthless stock because without the bailout the company you just bought would go out of business, no matter what you do with your controlling interest.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:10 PM on 11/24/2008

GM Is Not A Viable Business

China is already producing plug in hybrids.
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2008/11/kulongoski_lobbies_to_bring_ch.html
Any guess as to how their cost will compare to the $40,000 Chevy Volt?

With just the US T-Bills that China owns, China could buy 433 General Motors
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/china-could-buy-433-general-motors-with-their-t-bills-alone/

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:07 PM on 11/23/2008
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next › Last » (7 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in  or  Connect