Archive for December 12th, 2008

Playing hard ball … UAW says "$75 per hour sounds about right" … what happened to "no more special interests in Washington"?

December 12, 2008

Below are a few highlights from today’s WSJ report on the apparent collapse of the Detroit 3 bailout loan.  My ‘take’ and predictions follow …

* * * * *

Highlights excerpted from WSJ, Rescue Bid for Detroit Collapses in Senate, Dec. 12, 2008

A frantic, last-ditch attempt to forge a relief package for the auto industry collapsed in the U.S. Senate, dealing a giant blow to the immediate hopes of the Big Three.

The talks, which appeared close to a deal several times, broke off due to a sharp partisan dispute over the wages paid to workers at the manufacturing giants.

Republicans demanded the bill be strengthened to exact concessions from the industry. “We simply cannot ask the American taxpayer to subsidize failure”

The initial White House-backed package saying it doesn’t require auto makers and their unions, suppliers, creditors and dealers to make changes needed to return to a sound financial footing.

[Now, both Democrats and the car companies] hope the White House will now relent and allow the Treasury to provide emergency loans from the $700 billion Wall Street fund.

Harry Reid said the Senate would be in recess, and would stand in pro forma session until January, when the new Congress will be convened with stronger Democratic majorities.

After a marathon day of negotiations, top Democrats appeared close to a deal that would toughen the bailout package in a bid to raise Republican support, which had proved an insurmountable stumbling block. The focus of talks was on seeking commitments to restructure the industry’s debt load and bring labor costs in line with wages paid by Toyota and Nissan  in the U.S.

But those talks fell apart after Republicans insisted that wages reach parity in 2009.  Mr. Reid declared talks at an impasse.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, complained that Republicans had attempted to turn the wage issue into a political matter about organized labor, instead of making it an “an economic issue.”

The collapse of the talks represents a major defeat for three companies and an auto union that once wielded immense political clout. Even after two appearances in Washington by the GM, Ford and Chrysler CEOs, and a show of solidarity with the UAW, the auto makers were unable to convince many skeptical lawmakers to change their minds and support a bailout.

GM will also discuss plans for its Saturn division. One option includes putting the division into bankruptcy protection, as it is technically a separate entity.

The collapse of the deal raises the stakes for Chrysler and its majority owner, Cerberus Capital. Lawmakers had called for Cerberus to put more money into the company, but Cerberus maintains it can’t because the bylaw of its investment funds prevents it from putting more than a small percentage of its investors’ funds into any single investment.

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122903816924599853.html?mod=testMod

* * * * *

Ken’s Take

  1. There is zero chance that the Detroit 3 can survive with  line workers getting $150,000 per year in salary and benefits.  Yes, it was weak management (in the 1970s, when business was booming and the UAW was striking) that saddled the companies with the problem.  But, there is no imaginable plan that can neutralize a $1,500 to $2,000 per car cost disadvantage.  Adding a  $5,000 battery to each car doesn’t solve the problem — it only exacerbates it.
  2. The problem isn’t “wages”.  The difference in take-home pay between Detroit and the “transplants” is only a couple of dollars.  The problems are gold-plated benefits (about twice as much for the Detroiters,  restrictive work rules that limit flexibility to move workers around (within the plants), and “featherbedding” — paying non-workers. 
  3. This is the issue that will really test Prez-O.  He campaigned, in part, on “no special interests”.  Well, the UAW threw $11 million into his campaign coffers and probably expect some “considerations”.  We’ll see …
  4. My favorite: Cerebus says it can’t throw in more money because of its by-laws.  That is being said at a time that there’s pressure to legislate the re-writing of mortgages and practically every other contract in America.  B.S.  Cerebus knows it’s good money after bad — and they want it to come from taxpayer’s pockets, not their’s.
  5. The “car czar” idea is frighteningly stupid.  Let’s see: the SEC, etc.,  can’t effectively oversee financial companies,  Boards of Directors can’t seem to oversee companies that they’re responsible for …. but, some uber-dude will be able to parachute in, learn a very complex business at warp speed, and — oh yeah — get the UAW in line.  Call me cynical, but I don’t think so.

* * * * *

Ken’s Predictions

  1. Bush will cave and fund the initial stages of this folly … with few “teeth” in the plan except to make the companies promise to “try hard”.
  2. Any teeth that are put in will be relaxed or reversed  on January 21, 2009.  The money will flow from Washington to Detroit, the UAW will prosper, and the Detroit 3 will still be teetering on bankruptcy. 
  3. A car czar will be appointed — the lobbying and politics will be overwhelming — and the poor sap will fail

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

What’s wrong with this statement: “People won’t buy cars from an automaker in bankruptcy”

December 12, 2008

I’ve heard this refrain at least a dozen times on CNBC today.  It’s been repeated so many times that it’s starting to take on the aura of fact.

Let’s dig a little deeper.  Pundits are saying “people who are surveyed say they won’t buy a car from a bankrupt automaker”.

Well, guess what.  The Detroit 3 (or at least GM and Chrysler are bankrupt!

The “fine hair” of difference is whether they go through a “bankruptcy proceeding” that potentially restructures them (and their burdensome union contracts) into a healthier condition.

I’m sure the survey question is — at least implicitly — “would you be more likely to buy a car from a financially healthy automaker or one that is bankrupt?”  Obvious answer, right?

The question should be “would you be more likely to buy a car from an automaker in bankruptcy proceedings, or one that is hanging by its financial finger nails and likely to go into formal bankruptcy in a couple of monthes?”  Rational answer: “none of the above”

What am I missing?

* * * * *
Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Re: SUVs … the proclamation of their death was a bit premature

December 12, 2008

Excerpted from Business Week, “The SUV Is Rising from the Dead”, November 26, 2008

* * * * * *

Americans are downsizing to the smallest vehicle they can tolerate. But in many cases, that’s just another kind of SUV—one that gets about 22 mpg

* * * * * *

When gasoline blew past $4 a gallon in July, pundits declared the era of the gas-guzzling sport-utility vehicle over.

Since then, of course, prices have dropped 50%, and …  more visitors to the Edmunds.comsite are researching SUVs … and appear to be ‘cycling back to our ‘bad’ car-buying habits.”

It’s more complicated than that. Americans are downsizing to the smallest vehicle they can tolerate.

But in many cases, that’s just another kind of SUV—one that gets about 22 mpg. That’s more eco-friendly than a Hummer, but this is hardly the era of conservation that some had predicted.

Gas-electric hybrids, which typically cost at least 15% more than conventional cars with similar mileage, are a tougher sell than they were just three months ago.

According to Edmunds, the number of people intending to buy a hybrid has been declining along with the fall in fuel prices. When gasoline prices peaked in July, 700,000 visitors to Edmunds.com checked out hybrid cars. But in October, only about 150,000 did so.

Meanwhile, J.D. Power & Associates (MHP) says that 36% of people who traded in large SUVs in November turned right around and bought another one.

“Consumers tell us they don’t want a small car.They want something roomy (to haul kids and cargo) and more fuel-efficient.”

Full article:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_49/b4111063900772.htm 

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Buzzword: "Cause" Marketing

December 12, 2008

Excerpted from Washingtonpost.com, “Cause Marketing Matters to Consumers”, by Kim T. Gordon, October 14, 2008

* * * * *

In this new era of social responsibility, what you don’t do can cost you. “Cause marketing” is now the norm, and customers who visit your website and see your advertising want to know that you share their desire to make the world a better place by supporting an important cause.

If your business or brand doesn’t stand for a cause, consumers may turn to your competitors. The number of consumers who say they would switch from one brand to another if the other brand were associated with a good cause has climbed to 87 percent, a dramatic increase in recent years, according to a Cone Cause Evolution Survey.

Even niche markets, such as the nation’s college students, now show a striking preference for brands they believe to be socially responsible. According to a newly released College Explorer study from Alloy Media, nearly 95 percent of students say they are less likely to ignore an ad that promotes a brand’s partnership with a cause.

* * * * *

The challenge is to make your socially responsible efforts a winning proposition for the nonprofit group you support, the community and your business. You can master this marketing challenge by following these important steps:

– Choose a related cause: A solid cause-marketing campaign often starts with the right affiliation. So as you go through the nonprofit selection process, look for a cause that relates to your company or its products.

– Contribute more than dollars: For many types of businesses, cause marketing involves donating products or services and not simply writing a check. This can help form even stronger consumer associations between what you offer and the good work you do.

– Formalize your affiliation: To make your affiliation a win-win for everyone, work with the nonprofit you choose to define how it will help your business increase its visibility, brand or company awareness. If the organization has a newsletter or other communications with its constituents, negotiate for opportunities to do joint promotions. Discuss how you will use the organization’s logo and name in your marketing campaigns, and how it, in turn, will use your company logo and name in its press releases, on the organization’s website and in other materials.

– Mount a marketing campaign: Success in cause marketing often means motivating an audience to take action, such as making a donation or participating in an event.. Using a dedicated marketing campaign, you can reach and persuade the target group while also raising awareness for your business and its commitment to social responsibility.

Edit by DAF

* * * * *

Full article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/17/AR2008101702913_pf.html

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link => 
The Homa Files Blog

* * * * *