Archive for December 22nd, 2008

Detroit’s fight for survival … then and now.

December 22, 2008

Ken’s Take: It has taken awhile for folks to begin to realize that Detroit execs weren’t complete dolts — save for the unfortunate union negotiations in the 1970s that doomed the companies.  Consumers did want mini-vans and SUVs, and fortunately for the Detroiters, minivans and SUVs were profitable enough to cover their labor cost disadvantages.  Now, only to find a way out of the mess …

* * * * *

Excerpted from WSJ, “Auto Bailout Caps Flawed Relationship”, Dec. 22, 2008

The Detroit Three’s post World War II business strategies — which relied on large, powerful cars built by richly paid union workers — were doomed from the day in 1982 when the first Honda Accord rolled off a nonunion assembly line in Ohio.

How Detroit’s auto makers will be able to stabilize financially in the short run is unclear, since it takes years to redo their product lines.

The fastest way to profitability for the Detroit Three, beyond giving haircuts to bondholders and slashing workers wages, would be to take advantage of falling gas prices to sell more of the gas-hungry sport-utility vehicles and large pickup trucks that  Obama and congressional Democrats don’t like.

Washington’s policies, and the way the government exerted regulatory control over the auto makers, often worked against the profound changes the companies needed to make to compete with foreign makers.

Up until this year, Detroit had few reasons not to lean on trucks and SUVs for profits — and government policy all but invited them to do so.

Since the 1980s, Washington’s de facto energy policy has been to keep gasoline prices, and gasoline taxes, low. By contrast, European nations for years have boosted fuel prices to around $6 a gallon through taxes, which pushed consumers toward small cars.

The result: U.S. consumers gravitated toward ever larger and more powerful vehicles because the costs to fuel them were relatively low. In 1987, the average American vehicle got 22 miles to the gallon, weighed 3,221 pounds and accelerated from 0 to 60 miles per hour in 13.1 seconds. By 2007, the average car weighed 4,144 pounds, accelerated to 60 miles per hour in under 10 seconds — and averaged 20 miles per gallon.

Federal tariffs imposed on imported trucks and other quirks in Washington’s fuel-economy regulatory scheme also encouraged U.S. auto executives to push trucks and SUVs.Federal fuel-economy rules allow car makers to average the fuel usage of most of their products. They could sell fuel-efficient small cars and trucks at little or no profit to make up for the high-profit, gas-hungry luxury cars and big SUVs they promoted.

In recent years, GM, Ford and Chrysler made money on trucks — with profits of as much as $8,000 a vehicle — and lost money on cars. Detroit made enough money to cover spiraling health-care and pension costs.

Federal rules caused Detroit “to cede the car market and make all their money in trucks.”

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122990466217625249.html?mod=article-outset-box 

* * * * *

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

Quick: The batteries that power hybrid electric cars — where are they made?

December 22, 2008

Answer: Mostly Japan.  By Panasonic and Sanyo — soon to be just Panasonic since it announced that it’s buying Sanyo. Some from China.

So, our national strategy to become energy independent requires sourcing the major auto component — a $5,000 battery — from a foreign supplier.

Anybody see a problem with that?

This ironic twist is widely known, seems to stay off most radar screens.  Fortunately, there’s a consortium of U.S. companies — called the National Alliance for Advanced Transportation Battery Cell Manufacture — trying to develop a U.S. based battery manufacturing capability.   The consortium is knocking on the government’s door for some development money.

This is one use of tax dollars that I’m in favor of …

* * * * *
Excerpted from WSJ, “U.S. Firms Join Forces to Build Car Batteries”,  December 12, 2008

Many experts believe battery technology and manufacturing capacity could become as strategically important as oil is today.

Fourteen U.S. technology companies are joining forces and seeking $1 billion in federal aid to build a plant to make advanced batteries for electric cars, in a bid to catch up to Asian rivals that are far ahead of the U.S.

Two decades ago, a similar helped the U.S. computer-chip industry restore its competitiveness.

Auto makers, including General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co., say they plan to roll out plug-in electric cars by 2010. But the U.S. has limited capacity to make the lithium-ion batteries those cars will need. Most of the batteries used in today’s hybrid vehicles, including Toyota Motor Corp.’s Prius and some of GM’s hybrid models, come from Asian makers.

Though much of the advanced battery technology was developed in the U.S., American companies “opted out” of battery production because of the low returns the business offered and the U.S. has lost the lead in battery manufacturing. Asian manufacturers picked up the business because of their proximity to makers of electronic devices, which need a steady supply of batteries.

The consortium intends to solicit as much as $1 billion in federal funds from the Obama administration by tapping loan guarantees contained in an energy-security act passed last year. The act pledges as much as $7 billion in loan guarantees for advanced-battery plants in the U.S. The first large-scale lithium-ion battery plant in the U.S. could cost $1 billion to $2 billion.

Full article:
 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122957206516817419.html?mod=testMod

* * * * *

Ken’s Take:

U.S. battery manufacturing must be a strategic national priority if we’re serious about becoming energy independent and carbon fuel light.

But, battery manufacturing is only part of the equation. 

The primary input to the next generation auto grade rechargeable battery is lithium.  Any idea where that element comes from? 

Hint: not the U.S.  I’ll give the answer in a subsequent post.

* * * * *

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

For small car buyers, fuel economy & sticker price are important … not safety. Huh ?

December 22, 2008

Excerpted from WSJ, “Small Cars Improve in Crashes” by Jonathan Welsh, December 17, 2008

* * * * *
The demand for smaller, more fuel-efficient cars has increased. Sales of compact cars like the Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris and Nissan Versa rose 24% though November, while sales of large utilities fell 36%.

Among small-car buyers, safety tends to take a back seat to fuel economy and a low sticker price. While 86% of basic compact-car buyers rated fuel economy as the feature about which they cared most, 29% rated safety as a top concern…

The good news: Small cars fare better in crashes than they used to … But, they still lag behind larger vehicles in protecting passengers. Their disadvantages are especially clear in side-impact crashes. Of the nine small cars recently tested…all received the group’s top rating of “good” in frontal crashes — but only two got good ratings when hit from the side. The test results highlight the difficulty for designers and engineers in developing cars that are small and light yet still strong enough to withstand collisions with large vehicles

Only the SX4 and Matrix, and its twin the Vibe, received good ratings for protection in side crashes. The Ford and Chevrolet were judged acceptable in side-impact protection, while the Hyundai and Saturn were marginal and the Chrysler was poor. Only the Ford Focus was top-rated in rear-impact crashes…The Chrysler PT Cruiser was the worst performer…Car makers have rapidly improved small-car design in the past few years by strengthening vehicles’ protective framework and adding side airbags…

The … side-impact tests are especially difficult for small cars because the barrier used to strike the test vehicle simulates the front end of a large SUV or pickup truck. The high bumper typically hits the test car at the same level as the heads of test dummies representing the driver and rear driver-side passenger. This makes head-protection side airbags critical.

Edit by SAC 

* * * * *

Ken’s Take:  I wonder if small car drivers pick airlines based on the same criteria?

* * * * *

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

Plunging U.S. auto sales …

December 22, 2008

Combined Detroit 3 U.S. auto sales today (under 7 million vehicles) are about equal to GM’s sales in 1985 …

[u.s. auto sales]

Note: about 1/3 of Chrysler’s 600,000 sales are to fleets, e.g. rental cars, company pools.

Source:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122969367595121563.html?mod=testMod 

* * * * *

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

New Domain Names, New Costs to Brands

December 22, 2008
Excerpted from WSJ “New Domain Names Put Name Brands in a Bind” by Emily Steel, November 5, 2008
* * * * *
Worried about having to shell out millions of dollars to protect their brands, several major companies are protesting the launch of a slew of new top-level domains — the suffixes like “.com” that appear at the end of Web-site names.

Verizon Communications, Marriott, and New York Life Insurance are among the companies arguing that the new domains could open the flood gates to Internet fraud and drastically increase their costs of doing business online…

The organization that oversees the Internet, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, plans to start selling the rights to an unlimited number of top-level domains next year. These domains are likely to take their names from popular subjects, types of businesses, geographic locations or even brand names, such as .bank, .hotel, .nyc or .verizon.

Companies fear that if they don’t register their trademarks at the new domains, their brand names could be hijacked, leading to mistrust of their brands, as well as Internet scams.

“Companies are in a difficult position. In one sense, they may feel compelled to register their crown jewels in all these locations because if they don’t, an infringer will come along, and you will have to deal with the consequences. But at the same time, it’s a huge waste of corporate resources,” says Sarah Deutsch, vice president and associate general counsel at Verizon.

ICANN, a not-for-profit organization whose members include the registrars who operate the top-level domains, says…current domains are too crowded. The crowding makes it difficult for newcomers to buy a domain that suits their business…

Companies are debating whether they should buy up the rights to operate their own brand-specific domains, such as .marriott or .nylife. They also are looking at registering their trademarks for more generic domains. For example, Marriott is considering acquiring the rights to Marriott.nyc, Marriott.travel or Marriott.vacations…

A typical company might register 20 sites within each new top-level domain, making the total cost to participate in all 200 of them $2 million, says Josh Bourne, managing partner of FairWinds Partners, an Internet-strategy consulting firm.

There currently are 21 generic top-level domains, such as .org, .info and .biz…Companies already spend a significant sum each year to buy up domain names connected to their brand…

Companies say they have been through this before, pointing to earlier launches of such domains as .asia or .eu. They bought up hundreds of thousands of domains pre-emptively but say these sites either sit dormant or fail to generate traffic.

 Edit by SAC

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122583938093998683.html

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