In normal times, this might not be such a big deal.  Chrysler went into bankruptcy a few decades ago and emerged as a better, stronger company.  But, times have changed, and the underlying problem is the same no matter what industry we’re talking about – lenders are remiss to help companies before they get into trouble and even less likely to help those in bankruptcy.  Congress seems to be missing these facts as they continue to grill the Big Three, and while I’m not in support of a bailout, it is time to consider a loan or rescue package that will allow these companies to survive.

Interestingly enough, CNN recently polled 1100 people by telephone only to find that 61% of them oppose a bailout of the auto indusustry.  Their conjecture is that the American consumer is burnt from the Troubled Asset Relief Program and its enormous size, leaving them feeling as though $35 billion just isn’t enough to worry about.  Unfortunately, my belief is that much of the problem Detroit is experiencing today stems from the same set of problems that is troubling Wall Street – lenders aren’t lending.  They’re not lending to each other, they’re not lending to other businesses, and most importantly for Detroit they’ve made it difficult to get loans for consumers wanting to buy new cars.  Add to that the market turmoil, the media’s continued blaring horns claiming how bad the economy is, and increasing layoffs and you’ve got the “perfect storm” for taking out a Big Three player.

Apparently I’m not the only one considering the devastation that this would cause world-wide, and Keith Wendell of Johnson Controls recently pointed out the obvious:

“Should one of the Detroit 3 fail, a significant number of supplier failures would occur and become unmanageable,” he said. These companies also supply parts to foreign automakers that assemble cars in the United States.

From an economist:

Economist Zandi urged Congress to provide the $34 billion. “Without any government help, the Big Three will quickly end up in bankruptcy and be effectively liquidated, resulting in hundreds of thousands of layoffs at just the wrong time for the sliding economy,” he said.

With recent actions it would also seem that the Big Three are willing to do whatever it takes to open their books and even as far as government oversight to save their companies.  Even though they haven’t been the smartest about their efforts, their persistence and similarity of message seems telling to me.  Couple that with a roughly 30% drop in sales compared to a year ago, it’s looking very bleak for these companies.  The only one that seems to be somewhat safe, if you believe Alan Mulally, president and CEO of Ford, is Ford, and even he is going to Washington to secure loans in case of a more serious downturn.

Only time will tell where this ends up, but for the sake of our economy, the jobs of people surrounding the auto industry, and the future of manufacturing in America I hope that the people reviewing these decisions know what they’re doing.  If they don’t, the world will suffer.

Ranter

The Big Three Are Looking for $25 Billion Plus to Help Weather a Longer Than Expected Recession

I talked yesterday about my feelings surrounding the auto-bailout for Chrysler, Ford and General Motors, and the more I read about what Congress is doing and the debates that are flying around the more frustrated I get.  Now CNN is reporting that Congress wants the automakers to show how they plan on spending their bailout dollars before they’re willing to offer any.  Generally speaking this isn’t a bad idea, but what I find most frustrating is that they haven’t publicly asked the same from companies like AIG or banks taking money from the already approved $700 billion bailout.  Doesn’t it seem logical that any company coming to Uncle Sam for a loan/bailout would be held to the same standards?

At the same time they’re asking for $25 billion in taxpayer money – these auto company CEOs are idiots.  They all came from the same state in their own private luxury jets.  The average American will never see first class, let alone the inside of a private luxury jet, and while continuing to pay their taxes will probably end up eating Mac-and-Cheese to get through this depression recession and these beggars can’t even share a ride or fly commercial.  That’s saying two things – they are neither green nor frugal, and that should be disconcerting to everyone.  These companies need to get both quickly and those changes need to start at the top.

I’ve voiced my opinions about what needs to be done for the economy, and now I would like to talk about what needs to be done for the auto-industry to succeed.  My experience is limited, my economic knowledge is nill, but I am a consumer and do understand that there are obvious changes that should be visisble to anyone with half an interest in fixing these problems.

• Become Competitive With Toyota and Honda. The Big 3 have lost their edge.  Americans have lost their faith in these companies and it’s not going to get better for them overnight.  With few exceptions, the American auto industry has lost its vision, quality, and competitiveness in today’s market.  Their cars are dated, of lower quality, and often priced higher than the foreign competitors.  Until they realize that the competition isn’t amongst each other they will never reach a level of success that can sustain the industry.
• Reduce Costs and Long-Term Obligations. A huge problem with the Big Three right now is simple – the Unions.  They’ve done an outstanding job of increasing the costs of their members through collective bargaining, but in times like this they’re a roadblock to solving the big problems that face all three manufacturers.  In order to survive these companies are going to have to reduce their medical expenses, reduce their pension costs, and reduce their labor costs.  If the Union isn’t going to work with them to make these changes it’s going to be a nearly impossible battle for these companies.
• Reduce Their Corporate Perks and Salaries. Being the president of Ford can be a very, very rewarding job.  But the payroll numbers are only half the story, and looking back to the Lee Iacoca days of Chrysler it’s obvious that the private lunchrooms, limousines in waiting and private air travel are going to have to be cut.  The extravagant car shows, announcements and excessive advertising will have to be dropped, too.  Salaries for all levels will have to be adjusted to help these companies survived and the people at the top will need to accept that for a while it’s going to be very, very lean.
• Improve the Car Buying Experience. If you asked most Americans if they would prefer to buy a new car or go to the dentist and I would be willing to bet that a very high percentage would prefer to visit the dentist to have their teeth pulled without Novocaine.  Buying a car has become that bad of an experience – especially for domestic brands.  GM did a good thing with Saturn – their one-price structure – and it worked very well.  Why they wouldn’t bring that out company-wide, I still don’t understand.  Using Scion as an example – everything is spelled out for you.  From the cost of each service to the cost of every accessory.  You don’t need to negotiate and you don’t need to worry about being taken advantage of.  This model works and it works well – generally the consumer will appreciate being treated like an adult and the margins for the dealers, while not huge, will not vary, which means that they can consistently budget for their business.

These are obviously a non-auto-executives ideas.  I don’t know anything about the car business, but I do know what it takes to succeed in business and these guys aren’t doing it.  They need help and they need to take their thousands of employees and become lean and mean to become competitive again.  For now, I am simply saying loan them the money and give them a chance to deal with lean times.  If they then fail, at least it’s not for lack of trying.

Ranter

These plans are as optimistic as TARP, with the Federal Reserve Bank offering as much as $200 billion to purchase securities backed by consumer debt (credit cards, auto loans, student loans, etc.).  The Treasury will then insure up to $20 billion against losses (is this confusing yet?) and then the Federal Reserve will purchase up to another $500 billion in mortgage backed securities from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae (lets call them the three stooges).  As if that’s not enough, the Fed will also buy another $100 billion in direct debt issued by those firms.  And that’s it for Tuesday.

The best part – this time the Fed has a plan for where the money is coming from – the fed is going to make it from thin air increase their reserves.  Added to the other $700+ billion back in October, and now we’re talking about a lot of money, and from this seat nothing seems to have changed.  Obviously, as the country prints more money to increase their reserves they reduce the value of the American dollar world-wide, ultimately reducing the value of our exports and increasing the cost of our imports – not good for a country in recession.  How this plays out with the rest of the world experiencing similar problems and similar bailouts is yet to be seen, but considering this is really what can be called a credit starved recession it’s unlikely to see how the heavily indebted United States will come out of this without significant long-term issues.

The hope and potential upside here is that the Federal Reserve’s action will significantly improve the residential housing market, improving consumer confidence, improving asset values for banks, and hopefully promoting consumer spending through the purchase, construction, improvement and redecorating that comes with home ownership.  If it doesn’t, it will just be one more thing that the government tried, which like it or not is probably preventing a full-on global depression at a scale unlike anything we’ve ever seen before.

Obviously, I am hopeful for the best here and believe that at some point the banks, consumers, and small businesses that drive our economy are going to have to stabilize and eventually grow.  There will be a considerable amount of time between that growth and where we are today, but even a moderate stabilization would do wonders for consumer confidence, global confidence, and the American dream.

Ranter

$3.18 trillion — Already been tapped by banks and other financial institutions

$2.4 trillion — Set aside to buy short-term notes, or commercial paper, that companies use to pay bills

$1.4 trillion — Used by the FDIC to guarantee bank to bank loans

$29 billion — To help with the Bear Stearns takeover by JP Morgan Chase and Co

$123 billion — Bailout for AIG

$306 billion — Guaranteed of CitiGroup debt

$20 Billion — Citibank liquidity loan

$200 billion — Promised to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

$139 billion — Loan guarantees for GE’s finance unit

The article continues to talk about how this is the worst crisis to hit America – ever – and that the only difference between this and the great Depression is that now we have these tools – the ability to promote liquidity – even though great risk exists.  They do provide quite a bit of both sides – good and bad – for these programs, but they also leave out some of the fundamentals.  In order for these dollars to be realized:

1. All the loans and short-term lending would go bad.  All the banks fail without repaying any of the loans.  Collateral becomes value-less and none of the investment is recovered.
2. All the banks and other companies go under and the preferred stock and investment dollars go bad.  The assets are valueless and no dollars are returned.
3. All the mortgages owned by all the banks go to zero value.  Houses are determined to be worthless, and no value is returned.

Obviously, it’s impossible to imagine a scenario where every company goes under and every home goes to $0 value, so these numbers aren’t real.  There is, of course, a lot of money spent and a lot of money at risk, but even with some losses it’s equally likely that some of these companies will survive and even prosper, in which case there will be an upside realized by the government.  It’s a waiting game, and frankly I do think that the alternative in some of these cases might be a lot worse.

Would love to hear some other opinions.

Ranter

The problem that I have with the proposed auto-bailout is that it’s starting to look like the prejudices are coming out.  Most vocal are the same people that supported the recent $700 billion bailout.  These rich folks in office want to protect the companies and individuals that have backed them the most and aren’t worrying as much about the average American.  Most government officials have forgotten who votes in this country, and unfortunately when it comes time to vote again most will have long forgotten about the decisions made today.  Think about it – until recently most of the country has never heard of a company named AIG.  Yet, the government had us all convinced that if they went under hundreds of thousands would be impacted.  To this point already, AIG has been “loaned” over $150 billion and it’s still questionable if they’ll survive.  That billion with a “b” and taxpayer money.

On the other hand, I think you would be hard pressed to find a person in the United States over the age of six who hasn’t heard of General Motors.  Most over 10 probably know how successful they used to be and their impact on America.  Right now their industry needs a lousy $25 billion and they’re getting denial every step of the way.  Senator Christoper Dodd, (D) from connecticut, who also happens to be the Chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee is quoted as saying:

“Their board rooms in my view have been devoid of vision. They have promoted and often driven the demand of inefficient, gas guzzling vehicles, and dismissed the threat of global warming.”

Anyone want to bet on whether the boardrooms of AIG and the banks benefiting from the bailout were any more visionary in their foresight on the mortgage crisis impacting the world today?  Sure seems like that would have been easier for everyone to see that coming then it would be to imagine those same companies bringing the economy to its knees leaving consumers unabe to afford to buy cars from GM, Ford and Chrysler.  Befitting his title, Senator Dodd goes onto justify the reason that banks need help by saying:

“I appreciate the Treasury Department’s willingness to adjust to the current situation in our financial markets.  I am also gratified that they listened to Congress when we insisted on including alternative strategies, such as liquidity injections, in the financial rescue legislation.  It is alarming to imagine how limited the Treasury’s options would be if Congress had not made substantial changes to their three page proposal.”

…, it is becoming increasingly apparent that a robust and aggressive program to stem the tide of foreclosures sweeping across the nation is critical to any policy to put our economy back on track.  I am concerned that we may have to wait until the next Administration before we have the real change in economic policy that our nation needs, but it is my sincere hope that Secretary Paulson collaborates with Chairman Bair to get this program up and running as soon as possible.  There is no legitimate reason why they would be unable to do so.  Secretary Paulson should be as quick to realize that the foreclosure issue is critical to solving our problems as he was in realizing that equity purchases were necessary.”

Any questions about where Dodd’s allegiances are?  I guess there’s not a ton of car money in Connecticut.  Unfortunately, at this point for the government it is probably all or nothing.  The government either needs to look at these companies and say they cannot be replaced or continue heading down the path of rescuing those that are most in need.  Obviously this isn’t trickle-down to even the smallest companies, but I think that GM, Ford and Chrysler would have to qualify and it’s amazing to me that the same government that rubber-stamped $700 billion can’t see it.

Ranter

Shoring Up the Economy

Experts are predicting that there will be somewhere between 3 and 5 million foreclosures next year alone. These figures amount to somewhere between 8,000 and 14,000 people evicted from their home every day. This is obviously not a small problem and with the continued acceleration of foreclosures it is very unlikely that it’s going to get better any time soon.  Something has to be done; the situation has gone from bad to worse and the world economy is now free-falling into a global recession unlike anything imagined before.

I’ve already expressed that Henry Paulsen is not able to help the economy and I believe that time will show he prolonged and worsened the problems that he/Goldman Sachs helped create.  I’m hopeful about Barack Obama coming into office because I believe that the world needs change and hope to empower the average citizen to help with improving the economy – to help the consumer believe.  Unfortunately, I don’t think that Barack Obama will be enough and that’s where I believe the United States (and the world as an extension of the US) needs a bailout/stimulus plan that helps stabilize the markets while simultaneously improving consumer confidence.  Some components should include:

• Clear, sustainable leadership. The Treasury Secretary of the United States will make a great point position for the foundation of these improvements, but ultimately I believe that the solutions will include a multi-faceted approach to solving this problem.  What we’ve learned from Paulsen is that one person is not enough – a team of experts with real world experience should be brought in to help resolve these problems.  This team should include citizens to articulate the problem, experts to analyze the information, and businesspeople that have shown they have the experience, perseverance and strength to enact and stick with their policies.  This team may or may include international members, because we’ve already shown this is a world problem, it’s going to take the world to correct and rebound.  This team will need have the power to act and consistently provide a uniform front.  This team must not put the interests of the banks and financial institutions ahead of the interests of the country and its citizens.
• The ability to let companies fail. I believe that many of the problems we are facing today stem from the fact that we, as Americans, believed were told that AIG was too big to fail.  The world has to accept that no company is too big to fail, and some companies should fail.  Those failures will bring pain, discomfort and financial losses, but, they will be controllable, calculable losses of investor’s dollars and not carried on the shoulders of the American public.  If AIG had filed for bankruptcy when this all began, would the situation be better or worse today?  I sincerely doubt they would be worse.
• The ability to succeed. One of the issues that keeps playing into this bailout/stimulus package is an unjustified urgency.  The original $700 billion was decided on virtually overnight – obviously without any foresight and based on the numbe of times Paulsen has changed his plan – without a real plan, either.  A plan needs to be created, enacted and allowed to succeed.  It took a long time to get into this mess, it’s going to take a long time to get out.  Let the experts and people selected to do this job do their job and then give their solutions time to work.  Too many people are looking/hoping for an overnight answer, some sign of the bottom, or an explaination – that’s not going to come without a plan and some time.
• Help for the consumer/homeowner. It’s obvious that many of the problems that exist today started with what are being called toxic investment or sub-prime home loans.  This is a small part of the problem – a very small part actually – but they show that the market didn’t deteriorate on its own – it had help.  Some of that help can in the form of fraud, but the majority came from greed, ignorance, and deceipt.  To change this, we are going to have to back up, start over and solve the problems within the foundation first.  This may mean letting some sub-prime borrowers who really can’t afford their home under any revised plan know the truth – they shouldn’t own their home.  At the same time help those people that are able to pay their home but can’t because they’ve lost their job, can’t refinance their loan, or are in a situation that was partially caused by the very banks that are now looking to take their home.  Let these owners recoup some of their losses from depressed home values from the companies that helped create the sub-prime mess.  Start there, do something quickly and shore up the foundation.
• A New Deal. The government is spending a lot of money, but unlike in previous times of crisis the money is only going to reduce the financial exposure some companies have created by making risky investments that they didn’t understand.  Some of that money needs to go to infrastructure projects, state projects, and other places that will create new opportunities, money and jobs.  This will include putting some money back into the states, propping up education nationally, and making sure that our cities and states aren’t going in bankruptcy in this volatile and unforgiving.
• Reduce government spending on frivolous projects and start reducing the deficit. At some point even the United States is going to feel the pinch of trillions of dollars in outstanding loans.  The consumers and  “average Americans” are already feeling that pinch as social services continue to decline nationwide.  If the government looked closely at “pork barrel spending” and reduced the unnecessary projects, the savings would be immense.  Even working through normal business efficiencies it’s obvious the government could save tens of millions.  I’d encourage our new administration to really look to business leaders to help so that it’s not simply politicians guessing what needs to be done.  Find someone that knows what it’s like to hit rock bottom and dig their way out and put that person on the team – they’ll tell you what’s frivolous, unnecessary or unlike to improve the situation.
• Stop the war. While reducing waste and frivolous spending is important, it’s also time to start looking at the two wars that we’re fighting and consider reducing our exposure to something more manageable, both logistically and financially.  It’s not up to America alone to defend democracy and at some point it’s time our country and government starts seeing the facts.  It costs approximately $341.4 million dollars each day we are at war in Iraq.  To put that into perspective – we’ve spent enough money on this war to provide health-care to 289,177,337 children for a year.  Where would you rather see that money go?  These costs do not include the 4,196 casualties that have been suffered since the war began – an incalculable cost by any measure.
• Pursue renewable energy and a reduction in global warming at all costs. I’m constantly amazed at how much talk goes into the arguments surrounding global warming and renewable energy while preaching “drill baby drill” comes from politicians looking to get into office.  Drilling for new oil is not the answer for anything other than how to deplete the worlds natural resources.  These things aren’t coming back and if we as a country and humans as a species don’t join together to protect our fragile ecology, it will not be their for our future.  Too many people seem to think that because this happens so slowly it doesn’t impact them or there’s nothing that they can do about it.  Absolutely untrue.  It does impact you.  It affects your life, your health, and your children.  The future is not about tomorrow, the future is about what we do today.

Obviously, I am not an economist.  I am not a statistician.  I’m barely an environmentalist.  I do not govern, fight wars, or influence great number of people.  I am a father.  I am an American.  I am concerned.  I want to know what’s going to be left for my children and theirs.  I want to know that the country and freedoms that I believe in so strongly will sustain in spite of the disregard that we have given them.  I want to know that people will care – about their rights, their country, and their future.

These words aren’t an answer to the ails of this world or even the problems that we’re facing today.  There is little more than my business and life experience to tell me that these ideas might have a hope of changing the economy or world for anyone.  These ideas are simply a starting point – an open dialogue for the readers of this blog and anyone who cares to share them with others.  It’s also my expression that we, as a country and through our government need to start somewhere.  We need to act.  Henry Paulsen’s 15 minutes of fame are up – it’s time to get moving – do something.  Now is a time for action.  From Paulsen, Obama and us as Citizens of this country.  Now is the time to act.

Ranter

Some experts contend, and I would assume that they are correct, that the 158 year old Citigroup is simply postponing the inevitible if things don’t change in the economy as a whole.  Of course, it will curb the ever increasing number of foreclosures, but until the underlying problems get resolved its impossible to know what the long-term benefits of this halt will be.

From my chair, the government’s bailout (still be referred to as only $700 billion) is focusing too much on bailing out the financial institutions, which isn’t going to help the economy or, as is becoming increasingly obvious, the average American family.  People can’t get loans, jobs are being lost, and there is a tremendous amount of fear about what is going to come next.  The Mortgage Bankers’ Association recently revealed that 4 million borrows are at least one payment behind and 500,000 are in the process of losing their home.  These are the people that should be benefiting from government intervention.  It’s not going to fix the banks or solve their problems, but it will certainly save homes and families while benefiting the economy as a whole.

Unfortunately, that’s a lot more work, and we already know how the government feels about work.  It’s much easier to sit back and help your cronies so you can keep your dead-wood-ass in office to continue bilking the American public of their hard earned money.

Ranter

Some of you still remember the internet bubble and subsequent popping of that bubble almost a decade ago.  My own company closed its doors after some of our “new economy” customers lost their funding, resulting in non-payment on millions of dollars already spent on web development.  We paid our employees and vendors the old fashioned way – we sold assets, clients, and took second jobs to make sure that we paid every dime owed.  Ultimately, we closed our doors, but not one vendor was left without payment or a guarantee of payment.  That’s how business used to be done.  It never once occurred to us to ask the government to bail us out of our problems, and I don’t remember any other company getting a bailout either.

In 2008, everything seems to have changed.  At what point is a company too big to fail?  Enron was huge, they failed, and the world continued to spin.  This year so far we’ve seen a $350 billion stimulus package, $130 billion going to AIG, $25 billion to the auto industry, $850 billion going to banks, financial institutions and who knows what else, and untold billions going out in backhand deals that most of us will never completely understand.  That’s a lot of money, and the way it looks today – we’re not even close to done bailing out big business with taxpayer’s hard earned money.

To be fair, these disbursements are really being sold as investments/loans and if you believe in a short-lived recession they could potentially be very, very lucrative.  Even in the case of a long-term recession, some of these deals could pay out quite well if the borrowing companies survive and prosper.  If not, these deals will prove to be enormous failures and American taxpayers will be left footing the bill.  If you’re a betting person, you’d have to play the odds and assume that some of these already failing companies will continue their path and ultimately fail in spite of the massive amount of money being put into them.  Even if you are not a betting person, you should be asking yourself, what makes the government feel that these companies can succeed now in what is being called an ever more difficult economy?

AIG was loaned almost $130 billon and recent articles have them saying that it’s pretty much gone and in order to continue their operations they may need more.  Who is asking the question – where did that first $130 billion go?  If your friend is borrowing money while quitting their job and buying new cars, at some point you stop loaning that friend money, regardless of the fact that he lets you borrow the cool cars every now and again.  At some point, it has to be the same thing for AIG – at some point the American economy has to cut AIG off and let the chips fall where they may.  A lot of people are going to lose a lot of money, and that’s unfortunate, but it’s better than the entire nation losing a lot of money so that some investors can sustain their riches.

Survival of the fittest, and ultimately some of these companies need to fail.  The strongest will survive and thrive.  Right now it’s like we’re slowly pulling the band-aid off, extending the pain, when we should really just rip it off quickly, take the pain, and move on.

A great example has to be the auto-industry.  Times are tight – no doubt – but if companies like GM, Ford and Chrysler need tens of billions just to survive, it’s time to ask out loud – can America continue to sustain three mediocre car companies?  It wasn’t too many years ago that Chrysler needed only $1.3 billion to survive (which resulted in $300 million in interest paid back the treasury), and now they’re back in line for another government loan – this one much larger than before.  Isn’t it time to ask, does America need Chrysler?  If they were as good at making cars as, say Toyota, wouldn’t they be profitable like Toyota?

These companies obviously provide millions of jobs – even conservative estimates are over 300 million people that would be impacted by the failure of one of the big three.  That’s a lot of people – but is it really?

Hypothetically, if Chrysler disappeared tomorrow, would 300 million people really lose their jobs?  Obviously not, because Americans will continue to need and buy cars.  Those would be Chrysler car buyers aren’t suddenly going to start riding their bikes – they’re going to buy another car.  Sure, it might be a Toyota or Nissan, which could be made in the US or anywhere around the world, but they are going to continue buying cars at the same volume that they might have bought Chrysler cars.  And, the companies that are capturing those sales might be more efficient, but they are still going to need some of the people, facilities, parts and mechanics that would have gone to Chrysler.  So yes, there would be a lot of pain, but in reality it’s not nearly as much as politicians and economists would leave you to believe.

It’s time to decide – do we keep handing out loans on a hope and a prayer that things will get better in the short-term and we won’t lose our shorts, or do we take our pain and move to the inevitible upswing that follows every loss?  I believe Darwin.

Ranter