Archive for the ‘Autos – Travel’ Category

Luxury Cars Still Selling

December 3, 2008

Excerpted from BusinessWeek, “A Tough Auto Market? Not If You’re a Maserati Exec”, by Dan Strumpf, November 21, 2008

* * * * *

With the U.S. all but certainly in a recession and many skittish consumers hesitant to buy even a Honda Accord, it would seem the last thing anyone would need is a $400,000 Rolls-Royce Phantom.

But sales of many high-end luxury cars are bucking the trend of plummeting car sales, as ultra-luxury cars are often highly resistant to economic downturns.

“You’re dealing with the ultra rich who, even if they take a hit, a car purchase for them is a very, very fractional piece of their net worth. Whether they’re paying $50,000 for a car or $200,000 or $300,000 for a car, it really makes no difference in their net worth.”

* * * * *

Sales at many cream-of-the-crop carmakers are bearing that out, and are either flat or down modestly. Some, like Rolls-Royce, have actually increased.

Ferrari’s U.S. sales, for example, are down just 3 percent for the first 10 months of the year, compared with an industrywide slump of 14 percent, according to sales figures compiled by Autodata. Maserati sales are up 10 percent, while sales at Rolls-Royce are up a whopping 32 percent.

Edit by DAF

* * * * *

Full article:
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D94JAGOO0.htm

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

The $1,500 new car option … (ok, it’s not really an option)

December 3, 2008

GM provides health benefits for a million people today — only a fraction of them actual workers.

These health-care expenses account for over $1,500 of the cost of every GM vehicle.

Common Observation: GM is no longer a car company that provides health benefits, but a health-care company that happens to make cars.

* * * * *
Excerpted from WSJ, “What’s Good for GM Could Be Good for America”, Dec 2, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122818153973071061.html 

* * * * *

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

Smart Cars Get Big But Still Get Stares

December 3, 2008

Excerpted from Marketing Daily, “U.S. Now 3rd-Best Market For Smart ForTwo Car” by Karl Greenberg, December 1, 2008

* * * * *

The ultra-diminutive Smart car still draws stares, but it isn’t as rare a bird as it used to be.

The Smart ForTwo car has been on sale in the U.S. for 10 months now…the U.S. is now the third-highest sales market for the 10-year-old ForTwo, behind Germany and Italy…since it began selling them in February, it has sold over 20,000 ForTwos through October.

Smart has eschewed advertising, relying instead on grassroots efforts, word-of-mouth and PR events…And the company still funnels prospects for the $11,990-$16,990 cars to a Web site launched last year, where consumers can reserve a car for $99…the company now has 73 “Smart Center” retail outlets in 35 states…about two-thirds are partnered with Mercedes-Benz dealers…

“We have always said our demographics are based on attitude and lifestyle, not income…the company is aiming to appeal to four demographic targets: baby boomers wanting a second or third car; empty nesters; people in large urban areas, “whose age could range from 18 to 80,” and first-time buyers.

“We are seeing a pretty even split across these groups in terms of who is buying the vehicles”…Smart will adhere to a no-advertising policy, focusing instead on online reservations, social networking, and discovery marketing…Next year, Smart will engage dealers to run promotions, and will begin to do owner events…

The car is selling strongly in New York, Los Angeles, the Pacific Northwest, South Florida and even Texas, as well as in large Midwestern cities.

Edit by SAC

* * * * *

The Smart car has come to the US at the right time as more Americans seek smaller, fuel efficient vehicles. It isn’t surprising that Smart appeals to a range of targets and with the very low hurdle rate of a $99 reservation fee nearly anyone can go online to customize and reserve their very own Smart car.  Especially when the fee is refundable at anytime. 

* * * * *

Full Article:
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=95741

* * * * *

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

Detroit 3 says "smaller more efficient cars" … even if they’re unprofitable ?

December 2, 2008

Excerpted from WSJ, Ford Plans Shift to Small Fuel-Efficient Cars, Dec 2, 2008

* * * * *  
Ford plans to tell Congress it is retooling itself to build small fuel-efficient cars and break from the past strategy of focusing mainly on large pick up trucks and sport-utility vehicles.

Ford’s plan would likely emphasize its new fuel-efficient gasoline turbocharged direct-injection engines across its lineup and plans to bring popular, high-mileage cars from its European operations to the U.S

GM’s plan includes cutting brands and focusing on new fuel-efficient vehicles …  to meet new stringent federal mileage rules. GM hopes to have an electric plug-in car, the Chevrolet Volt, on the road sometime in 2010.

Ford, like GM, will likely express a willingness to seek further cost-cuts and concessions from the United Auto Workers union

Ford has concerns about the payments it’s already made to a new health care trust for retiree union workers. GM owes the fund $7.5 billion by 2010 – an amount many suspect the auto maker cannot afford – while Ford just paid more than $4 billion in its similar obligation earlier this year.

With regard to possible concessions by the UAW. UAW President Ron Gettelfinger is open to eliminating the jobs bank, the program that pays workers most of their wages even when they are laid off and no longer work in plants.

[Ken’s Note: the job bank — laid-off workers getting near full-pay to play cards or do crossword puzzles in a congregating hall — costs the Detroit 3 over $1.5 billion annually — about over $600 per car sold — making their total labor cost disadvantage (vs. ‘transplant’ carmakers in the South) over $1,500 per car]

But Mr. Gettelfinger wants to see management sacrifices in return, and some kind of future retraining program to help laid-off workers get high-tech jobs in areas such as battery development for electric vehicles.

* * * * *

Auto companies were also devising alternative travel plans after lawmakers excoriated Detroit’s CEOs for previously using expensive corporate jets to make their way to Capitol Hill. Mr. Wagoner is considering driving from Detroit to Washington in one of GM’s hybrid models.

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122817144031770385.html?mod=testMod

* * * * *

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

The American auto industry you rarely read about … the profitable one

December 2, 2008

Excerpted from WSJ, “America’s Other Auto Industry”, Dec. 1, 2008

* * * * *
There are the 12 “foreign,” or so-called transplant, producers making cars across America’s South and Midwest.  Ths “other” American car industry is a model for how to do it.

Toyota, BMW, Kia and others now make 54% of the cars Americans buy … and employ some 113,000 Americans, compared with 239,000 at U.S.-owned carmakers.

Detroit has already adopted some of its efficiency and employment strategies, though not yet enough. To put it concisely, the transplants operate under conditions imposed by the free market. Detroit lives on Fantasy Island.

Consider labor costs. Take-home wages at the U.S. car makers average $28.42 an hour,that’s on par with $26 at Toyota, $24 at Honda and $21 at Hyundai.

But include benefits, and the picture changes. Hourly labor costs are $44.20 on average for the non-Detroit producers, but are $73.21 for Detroit.

In 1995, a GM car took 46 hours to make, Chrysler 43 and Toyota 29.4. By 2006,  GM had moved it to 32.4 hours per vehicle and Chrysler 32.9. Toyota stayed at 29.9. 

[Ken’s Note: [That’s about $2,400 of labor in each Detroit car; about $1,300 in each transplant car; over $1,000 difference per car in “applied labor”.  And that doesn’t include the costs of the UAW “job bank” Laid-off workers get nearly full-pay to play cards or do crossword puzzles in a congregating hall.  That program costs the Detroit 3 over $1.5 billion annually — about over $600 per car sold. So, their total labor cost disadvantage (vs. ‘transplant’ carmakers in the South) is more than $1,500 per car.  UGH !]

Over the decades the United Auto Workers won pension and health-care benefits far more generous than in almost any other American industry. As a result, for every UAW member working at a U.S. car maker today, three retirees collect benefits; at GM, the ratio is 4.6 to one.

The international producers’ relatively recent arrival has spared them these legacy burdens. They also located in investment-friendly states. The South proved especially attractive, offering tax breaks and a low-cost, nonunion labor pool.

The absence of the UAW also gives car producers the flexibility to deploy employees as needed.  At Detroit’s plants, electricians or mechanics tend to perform certain narrow tasks and often sit idle. That rarely happens outside Michigan.

Attempts to unionize foreign-owned factories have generally been unsuccessful; their workers know too well what that has meant for their UAW peers.

Another transplant advantage: Their factories are newer and production process simpler. As a result, they can switch their assembly lines to different models in minutes. Such a change would take weeks at UAW plants.

[Review & Outlook]

* * * * *

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB122809320261867867-lMyQjAxMDI4MjA4MTAwOTEzWj.html

* * * * *

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

High "Volt"-age? Can Their New Hybrid Jump Start GM?

December 2, 2008

Excerpted from the New York Times, “G.M.’s Latest Great Green Hope Is a Tall Order”, by Micheline Maynard, November 22, 2008

* * * * *

The Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in hybrid, will not arrive in showrooms until late 2010. But it is already straining under the weight of an entire company.

Executives at GM are using the Volt as the centerpiece of their case to a skeptical Congress that their business plan for a turnaround is strong, and that a federal bailout would be a good investment in G.M.’s future.

But whether the Volt can live up to its billing is already a matter of debate. And some industry analysts note that GM has a poor track record of introducing green technology to the market.

* * * * *

The Volt is a big long-term bet. New vehicles typically cost $1 billion to develop, and the Volt requires new technology that probably inflated that price tag even more.

G.M. says the car, which is scheduled to arrive in showrooms two years from now, will be able to travel 40 miles on a charge, but it will also have a small gas engine to extend the range to as much as 640 miles using both the battery and gasoline. It is expected to cost about $40,000.

To some, the Volt will remain a niche vehicle until its cost drops sharply and its range rises dramatically.

“If you’re the affluent individual who wants to make a statement, it’s one thing.”  “If you’re Joe the Commuter, you’re not going to spend $40,000 on an electric car. It’s insane.”

* * * * *

Once it arrives, GM believes, customers will adjust more rapidly to the Volt than they did to the Prius, Toyota’s hybrid gas-electric car. “I don’t think that’s going to be that big a deal for most people to get their heads around.”

“We’ve turned into a plug-in society. We’ve got cellphones, PDAs, you name it, that are all plugged in. To a certain extent, it’s not much more complicated conceptually than coming in and plugging in your cellphone.”

* * * * *

The Volt is not General Motors’ first electric vehicle. In 1996, G.M. started leasing the EV1, an electric car, to customers in California. Although its few hundred owners loved it, the EV1 was discontinued just three years later.

G.M. reportedly spent about $1 billion in the 1990s to develop the EV1, which it dropped after saying it could not make money on the cars. The EV1, which was available only in lease deals, sold for the equivalent of up to $44,000 but cost G.M. about $80,000 apiece to make.

Other efforts to earn green bragging rights have missed the mark, too. Only two years ago, G.M. promoted flexible fuel cars that run on E85, a blend of ethanol and gasoline, as the way to wean Americans off gasoline. But interest in ethanol has waned amid concerns about the environmental impact of using corn for fuel rather than food.

The company is building its largest sport utility vehicles with hybrid gas-electric power trains as well, but they have sold poorly.

Edit by DAF

* * * * *

Full article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/business/22volt.html?pagewanted=print

* * * * *

From Business Week, a compendium of articles re: Hybrid Cars
http://bx.businessweek.com/hybrid-cars/

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

In the new political economy, smart lobbyists will be arriving in hybrids …

December 1, 2008

Excerpted from IBD, “Job One: Wean The Economy Off Of Politics”,  Krauthammer,  November 28, 2008

* * * * * 

We have gone from a market economy to a political economy.

In the old days, if you wanted to get rich, you did it the Warren Buffett way: You learned to read income statements and balance sheets. Today you learn to read political tea leaves.

Today’s extreme stock market volatility is largely a reaction to meta-economic events: political decisions that have vast economic effects. You don’t anticipate Intel’s third-quarter earnings; instead, you guess what side of the bed Henry Paulson will wake up on tomorrow.

We may one day go back to a market economy. Meanwhile,  the two most important implications of our newly politicized economy are the vastly increased importance of lobbying and the massive market inefficiencies that political directives will introduce.

Lobbying used to be about advantages at the margin — a regulatory break here, a subsidy there. Now lobbying is about life and death.

You used to go to New York for capital. Now Wall Street, broke, is coming to Washington. With unimaginably large sums of money being given out, Washington will be subject to the most intense, most frenzied lobbying in American history.

The other kind of economic distortion will come from the political directives issued by newly empowered politicians.

For example, bank presidents are gravely warned by one senator after another about “hoarding” their bailout money. But hoarding is another word for recapitalizing to shore up your balance sheet to ensure solvency. Isn’t pushing money out the window with too little capital precisely the lending laxity that produced this crisis in the first place?

Even more egregious will be the directives to a nationalized Detroit. Sen. Schumer, the noted automotive engineer, has declared “a business model based on gas” to be completely unacceptable. He says,  “We need a business model based on cars of the future: the plug-in hybrid electric car.”

The Chevy Volt, for example? It has huge remaining technological hurdles, gets 40 miles on a charge and will sell for about $40,000, necessitating a $7,500 outright government subsidy. Who but the rich and politically correct will choose that over a $12,000 gas-powered Hyundai?

The new Detroit churning out Schumer-mobiles will make the steel mills of the Soviet Union look the model of efficiency.

* * * * *

Full article:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=312760589983880 

* * * * *

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

Auto Marketers See at Least One Shade of Green …

December 1, 2008

Excerpted from Brandweek, “Taking the Road Less Traveled” by Steve Miller, Superbrands 2008

* * * * *

In April, a revolution went down. New vehicle sales dipped 8%, cars began to outsell trucks, and sales of compacts and hybrids leaped, gratifying greenies everywhere and giving the auto industry a headache…

The momentum in the market has clearly shifted. A Kelley Blue Book survey in April found that 60% of new-vehicle buyers say gas prices have changed or influenced their purchase decision. Now, better-made small cars and gas prices have turned consumers on to cars like Toyota’s Yaris and Nissan’s Versa…

Marketing has tried to follow the bouncing ball that is consumer preferences…Meanwhile, hybrids…continue to play an emerging role in sales of small cars. Hybrids now account for 3.2% of all new car sales, up from 2.6% at the end of 2007…

But while environmentalists have embraced the vehicles, the price point difference (they are up to $5,000 more) and the fact that other gas-powered cars are now approaching hybrid-like fuel economy are challenging the technology. “The wallet always dominates in the car-buying decision…If [hybrid marketers] can conveniently make that case and make the economic equations easier, that will seal the deal”..

With all of the fuss about hybrids, alternative power trains and controversial fuels such as ethanol, most every automaker is now including something to draw attention to their own “enviromerits.”…Any campaign now has to, at least, give a nod to the green…But while green (as in environmentally conscious) is good, green (as in dough) is even better when it comes to marketing message…

Edit by SAC

* * * * *

While auto marketers focus their message on the green ($) is great theme consumers are beginning to realize that purchasing a hybrid may not be the smartest financial decision.  As the hybrid market evolves its consumers are also evolving, which means marketers must do even more to understand their preferences and likely, communicate to a new shade of green. 

* * * * *

Full Article:
http://www.brandweek.com/bw/superbrands/article_autos.html

* * * * *

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

Vespanomics: Touting Green Exhilaration & Practicality

November 28, 2008

Excerpted from Adweek, “Vespa Touts Scooters for Americans” by Eleftheria Parpis, Nov 24, 2008

* * * * *

Convincing Americans to ditch their SUVs for scooters seems an impossible marketing task, but what about getting consumers to augment their gas-guzzlers with a snazzy new Vespa for short trips? That is a much more realistic goal for Vespa USA, which recently launched a Web site that positions the iconic brand as fun and functional.

The site…offers product info, reviews and tools to post and plot favorite routes and calculate fuel savings. The objective is to convince more Americans to consider scooters as alternative transportation.

So far, Americans have heard few stories about ways to cut down on carbon emissions: either downsizing vehicles or switching to electric hybrids…”If you combine the usage of a car or SUV with a motor scooter–which millions of Europeans do every day–then you can achieve the same results.”

The venue offers a “Vespa vs. Auto MPG” tool where consumers can compare the scooters’ mileage to the performance of cars. Users can then determine how many miles per gallon they would save by combining Vespa travel with trips in vehicles they already own…

While Vespa…has seen an increase in sales since gas prices began rising, the challenge is to convince consumers that Vespas offer serious riding options, not just trips around the neighborhood…the site’s Google map-based “Community Rides” tool allows scooter owners to share, rate and comment on riding routes.

“Hopefully, over time, people will…realize these are not toys and that people really do use this as a transportation vehicle”…

Edit by SAC

* * * * *

The new Vespa website introduces the term “Vespanomics”, which refers to the ecological and economic benefits that Vespa provides riders with the additional promise of “total exhilaration” that comes from riding a “stylish, high performance Vespa.” In the past Vespa has emphasized the brand’s the style and lifestyle more than its practicality and efficiency.  Online and at dealerships, Vespa sells everything a rider needs to live the brand from scooter accessories, to clothing and beach towels to mini-notepads and lanyards.  Vespanomics is the tool Vespa needs to bring new users to the brand and to extend the brand lifestyle to include eco-concern.

* * * * *

Full Article:
http://www.brandweek.com/bw/content_display/esearch/e3i550533f2636cdbd1a765ce9cdcca1936

* * * * *

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

$2 gas dampens enthusiasm for hybrids … no kidding.

November 27, 2008

Excerpted from:WSJ,”Americans Drive Less, Creating a Problem”, NOVEMBER 24, 2008

* * * * *
  
When gasoline prices shot over $4 a gallon this summer, Americans … took action on their own by driving less and switching to more fuel-efficient cars.

The good news is that gasoline consumption has fallen … vehicle miles traveled — the wonky term for how much we drive — have dropped for 11 straight months, and fell 4.4% in September, according to the Department of Transportation.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tvtw/08septvt/08septvt.pdf

In short, many Americans, by choice or by default, did what the people who worry about the climate and U.S. dependence on petroleum wanted them to do. They burned about 5% less gasoline than a year ago.

By jamming the brakes on driving, rediscovering mass transit and walking past Hummers to buy compact cars like the Honda Fit, American consumers caused big trouble for powerful interests.

The oil industry and oil-producing nations have an acute problem, because the combination of conservation and the worst world-wide economic slump in decades has once again made a mockery of recent projections that oil would remain expensive and scarce forever.

The short term looks like a re-run of the late 1970s and early 1980s, when … oil prices soared, interest in electric cars, windmills, solar heating panels and other petroleum alternatives accelerated. When conservation and new oil discoveries caused oil prices to collapse, the economic justification for expensive, immature oil replacement technology collapsed as well, and it was a skip and a jump to the age of the SUV.

The federal government is conflicted, too. Yes, policy makers want us to conserve oil. But now that we have, the funds that pay for roads, bridges, rail transit and other transportation infrastructure are falling right along with gasoline tax receipts … gasoline taxes paid into the highway trust fund fell by $3 billion in the 2008 fiscal year.

One approach (for funding infrastructure) would be to raise the federal gasoline tax from its current 18.4 cents a gallon. By comparison, the tax rate in the U.K. is about $2.85 a gallon. Higher gas taxes could finance improvements to roads and mass transit, encourage further conservation or offset the costs of the various federal bailouts.

The collapse of gasoline prices since the summer — a drop of more than $2 a gallon — is an economic stimulus worth more than $200 billion a year.

* * * * *

All of this puts the people who seized on the recent gas price shocks as the moment to push green vehicle strategies in a bind.

At current gasoline prices, however, consumers who buy expensive electric or plug-in hybrid cars would find it smarter financially to buy a reasonably efficient, conventional subcompact and work from home one day a week.

If gasoline prices stay low, demand for vehicles that use sophisticated technology to consume less gasoline per mile will depend on consumers making long-term decisions that aren’t in their short-term economic interests. Otherwise, these new high-mileage cars might not sell for high enough prices to cover their higher costs.

A lot depends on whether Americans keep doing what they’re doing, regardless of what the numbers are on the gas station signs.

General Motors Corp. has insisted that its plug-in hybrid Chevy Volt, due in 2010, will survive the cost-cutting as the auto giant struggles to survive.

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122728664289448183.html

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

How much profit does Toyota makes on a Prius?

November 26, 2008

Excerpted from Washington Post, “The Car of the Future — but at What Cost?”, Steven Mufson, November 25, 2008

* * * * *

Hybrid Vehicles Are Popular, but Making Them Profitable Is a Challenge

Sen. Charles E. Schumer said last week. “We need a business model based on cars of the future, and we already know what that future is: the plug-in hybrid electric car.

“But the car company Schumer and other lawmakers envision for the future could turn out to be a money-losing operation, not part of a “sustainable U.S. auto industry.

“That’s because car manufacturers still haven’t figured out how to produce hybrid and plug-in vehicles cheaply enough to make money on them.

After a decade of relative success with its hybrid Prius, Toyota has sold about a million of the cars and is still widely believed by analysts to be losing money on each one sold.

U.S. lawmakers want the companies to produce automobiles of the future, using advanced technologies and featuring hybrid or plug-in vehicles.But there’s no guarantee that the new business model would be any more viable than the current one.

Automobile experts estimate that the battery in a plug-in vehicle could add at least $8,000 to the cost of a car, maybe considerably more.

Most Americans will be unwilling to pay the extra price, especially if gasoline prices languish around $2 a gallon.

One of the mysteries about GM’s plans to introduce the Volt in 2010 is how much it will cost to buy one.

“What’s the Volt going to cost? I would be happy to answer that if you can tell me the price of oil in 2010,” said Robert A. Kruse, GM’s executive director of global vehicle engineering for hybrids, electric vehicles and batteries.

“I can tell you to the penny what it will cost GM, but pricing is much more related to market conditions.”

“In 10 years are they [at GM] going to solve the technological problems with respect to the Volt? Sure,”

“But are they going to be able to stake their survival on it? I’d say they can’t. They have to stake their future on Malibus, the Chevy Cruze, and much more conventional technologies.”

“Do you bet on lighter, smaller, more fuel efficient but ultimately less profitable cars or do you hold back a little on technology development and look at new versions of existing cars.”

Many experts say that gas guzzlers will not fade away as long as Congress fails to impose higher taxes on gasoline to steer people toward fuel-efficient cars.

“I can easily imagine three years from now when public is focused on a new set of priorities . . . that this whole hubrid thing would go poof.”

Obama proposed a $7,500-a-vehicle tax credit for plug-in vehicles during his presidential campaign.

Roughly half of Americans don’t earn enough to take advantage of such a big tax credit.

Many others don’t have the cash to purchase an expensive vehicle then wait for a federal refund.

So,  GM and other car companies, while preparing plug-in vehicles, are more likely to live or die based on the sales of conventional cars that get better fuel efficiency through improved transmissions, reduced weight or hybrid technology.

GM says it will offer nine hybrids for sale by the middle of next year.

Reinert says that Toyota will eventually offer hybrid versions of all its car models.Auto industry experts say that the basic problem is that the U.S. industry geared up to make 18 million cars and light trucks a year and that it will be lucky to sell 11 million this year.

“There’s fluff and there’s reality,” Keller said.

 “The fluff is the Chevy Volt . . . That’s not going to save GM in the next five years. What will save GM is more small sedans and more crossovers. That’s what people are going to be buying.”Full article:

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

Replace the Big 3 CEOs ? I don't think that's the answer …

November 21, 2008

Based on their poor performances at the Congressional hearings this week — including the tone deaf moves of flying in on G4s and wearing bling to the hearings — there is a groundswell calling for the heads of the Big 3 automakers. 

The logic: it’s all the CEOs fault.  Replace them with smarter, more effective CEOs and everything will be ok.

Problem with the logic: Though Waggoner has been at GM forever and CEO for a long time, Mulally came to Ford a little over 2 years ago (from Boeing) and Nardelli came to Chrysler a little over a year ago (from Home Depot, after a career at GE).

In other words: TWO OF THE THREE ARE NEW !

Perhaps that’s why some of their answers weren’t as crisp and authoritative as one would expect.

My opinion: these are very complicated businesses with many constraints (burdensome union contracts, government regulations, legacy costs).  It would be difficult for any mere mortal to jump in, grasp the business, and overcome the constraints.

Who’s on the shortlist of replacement CEOs? Pity the poor souls.  Anybody who would take the job should be eliminated from consideration on the basis of poor judgment.

* * * * *

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

Replace the Big 3 CEOs ? I don’t think that’s the answer …

November 21, 2008

Based on their poor performances at the Congressional hearings this week — including the tone deaf moves of flying in on G4s and wearing bling to the hearings — there is a groundswell calling for the heads of the Big 3 automakers. 

The logic: it’s all the CEOs fault.  Replace them with smarter, more effective CEOs and everything will be ok.

Problem with the logic: Though Waggoner has been at GM forever and CEO for a long time, Mulally came to Ford a little over 2 years ago (from Boeing) and Nardelli came to Chrysler a little over a year ago (from Home Depot, after a career at GE).

In other words: TWO OF THE THREE ARE NEW !

Perhaps that’s why some of their answers weren’t as crisp and authoritative as one would expect.

My opinion: these are very complicated businesses with many constraints (burdensome union contracts, government regulations, legacy costs).  It would be difficult for any mere mortal to jump in, grasp the business, and overcome the constraints.

Who’s on the shortlist of replacement CEOs? Pity the poor souls.  Anybody who would take the job should be eliminated from consideration on the basis of poor judgment.

* * * * *

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

Pretty soon they’ll be the Little 3 … then the Dead 3 … and we’ll be $25 or $50 billion lighter.

November 19, 2008

Excerpted from IBD, “If No Givebacks, Then No Bailout”, November 17, 2008

* * * * *

Today the total market capitalization of the Big Three has fallen to about $7 billion. Is it better for the owners of those companies to suffer a total loss or for taxpayers to lose $25 billion?

* * * * *

American carmakers in 1960 owned 90% of the U.S. auto market. This year, for the first time ever, that share slipped below 50%.

Japan’s Big Three — Honda, Nissan and Toyota — make anywhere from $900 to $1,600 in pretax profit on each car they make in North America (mostly in southeastern states, with non-union contracts). America’s Big Three, by comparison, lose anywhere from $400 to $1,500.

* * * * *

Thanks in part to managerial incompetence, but mostly due to pricey union contracts, it costs American carmakers too much to build cars here; they can’t compete. These aren’t temporary problems. They’ve been brewing for decades, as management agreed over and over to labor deals that now financially strangle the industry.

When you fold in health care, pensions, hourly pay, vacations and the rest, average total compensation for a Big Three autoworker is $73.21 an hour, according to data cited by University of Michigan economist Mark Perry.

Toyota, Honda and Nissan pay a still-generous $44.20 an hour in total compensation — a cost edge of nearly 40%. Is it any wonder that Ford, GM and Chrysler can’t compete? Or that, after paying their workers, they never have enough cash left to retool?

Full article:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=311818292128101

* * * * *

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

The government should save General Motors … why?

November 13, 2008

Excerpted from IBD, “Pulling Plug On GM Would Help Both Auto Industry And Michigan”,  John Tamny,  November 11, 2008

* * * * *

Ludwig Von Mises once wrote that the entrepreneur who fails to use his capital to the “best possible satisfaction of consumers” is “relegated to a place in which his ineptitude no longer hurts people’s well-being.”

General Motors … is the living embodiment of managerial ineptitude, and to ensure that it no longer fails its customers while harming the well-being of Americans more broadly, it’s essential to let the firm die.

GM’s continued existence under weak management has served as a capital repellant such that capital and jobs will continue to flee the state if GM is saved with the money of others.

* * * * *

Businesses rarely fail due to a lack of money. Instead, poorly run businesses find it hard to raise money in the capital markets. Government money allows the architects of bad decisions to continue making mistakes that cause a company to be capital-deficient to begin with. Capital is correctly searching for better opportunities.

Paradoxical as it sounds, GM’s bankruptcy would be a boost for Michigan’s economy and the U.S. auto sector generally.

Far from vanishing, many of GM’s assets would be quickly purchased by competent foreign automakers eager to expand their capacity in what is the world’s largest auto market. The list of well-run car companies, from Toyota to Nissan to Porsche, is long.

So while the cries of certain Armageddon would be ear splitting in the event of a GM failure, the U.S. auto sector would actually emerge much healthier thanks to a change in ownership that would be the certain result of GM going under.

* * * * *

In the end, the state of Michigan and the U.S. automobile sector are struggling not due to back luck, but precisely because they cling to a company that investors no longer value.

So rather than waste precious capital in the naive hope of propping up that which investors don’t value, it’s essential to let GM fail.

* * * * *
Full article:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=311297941730996

* * * * *

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

Forging Ahead at Ford Motors … what a difference a week or two makes

November 13, 2008

Excerpted from New York Times, “Ford Says It Can Make It Without a Merger”, by Bill Vlasic, October 30, 2008

* * * * *

Ken’s Take: Everything is fine in October.  Then, in the first week of November, Ford’s CEO shows up in Washington with a big tin cup.  Huh ?

* * * * *

With United States vehicle sales down nearly 13 percent this year, most car companies have been cutting production rather than increasing it.

But with 1,200 hourly workers cheering them on, top executives of the Ford Motor Company said Thursday that they would call back 1,000 laid-off workers to help build more trucks.

While its Detroit rivals General Motors and Chrysler wrestle over terms of a possible merger and seek help from Washington to survive the steepest downturn in the industry in decades, Ford says it can survive, and thrive, on its own.

Ford is gearing up for a new-product blitz that will replace 40 percent of its production with fresh models by next year. And the company — sandwiched between the bigger G.M. and the smaller Chrysler in Detroit’s traditional Big Three — hopes to take advantage of the potential merger of its rivals and the distractions that come with it.

“I don’t know what they’re going to be spending their time on if they’re merging,” said James Farley, Ford’s vice president for sales and communications. “But I know we’re spending our time on launching products.”

* * * * *

Ford is counting on a wave of product introductions to increase its revenue during the market downturn.

In addition to the F-150, Ford is bringing out new versions of its Taurus and Mustang passenger cars next year and accelerating development of a series of new smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Analysts say they believe Ford has some opportunity to take market share from G.M. and Chrysler if the two companies merge and go through a prolonged restructuring.

“Ford could definitely make some hay while all the turmoil is going on at G.M. and Chrysler and they try to put those two companies together,” said Joseph Phillippi, principal in the consulting firm AutoTrends in Short Hills, N.J.

Ford is moving faster than its rivals to replace its big, gas-guzzling S.U.V.’s with small cars. But any hope Ford has for a revival depends largely on strong sales of its new F-150 pickup.

Through the first nine months of the year, the F-series was still the top-selling vehicle in America. The new version, Ford executives said, is aimed directly at buyers who need trucks for work and other practical purposes, rather than because of their macho image.

Edit by DAF

* * * * *

Full article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/business/31ford.html?ref=business

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

AMS: Prius Prices Jacked Up … Surprised?

October 30, 2008

Encore presentation: Originally posted July 31, 2008. 

* * * * *

Excerpted from the WSJ :”Patience Pays When Shopping for a Hybrid” July 30, 2008;

When gasoline prices hit $4 a gallon …  demand for smaller cars — hybrids and Priuses in particular — soared …  the wait for the popular hybrid has grown to roughly three months since May, and prices have climbed steeply, too.

The Prius’s gas mileage averages in the 45-miles-per-gallon range; that’s impressive, but the base price, following a $400 increase in May and a $500 jump that goes into effect Friday, is fairly steep …  if your main goal is to save money by buying less gasoline.

Next month, the basic Prius will start at $22,720. That’s more than … other reasonably fuel-efficient sedans, like the Toyota Camry, Honda Civic, Toyota Corolla, Nissan Altima or Ford Focus.

The (dealer) price has shot up, too … the average Prius now sells for $1,000 to $2,000 above the manufacturer’s suggested retail price.

It’s worth calculating your fuel savings to see how long it will take to make up the price difference.  [See earlier post Hybrid Cars – Tough Sell]

Toyota …  sold about 175,000 of the cars to the U.S. last year …  and expects to offer about the same number this year, largely because it can’t get enough batteries and other components to boost production.

For full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121738122995795557.html

* * * * *

Thanks to MSB MBA alum Justin Bates for the heads-up

* * * * *

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

Gas is $4 per gallon … car buyers are going 'green' … coincidence ?

October 29, 2008

Excerpted from BrandWeek: “Car Buyers Motivated By ‘Green'”, Sept 23, 2008

* * * * * 

Toyota, Honda and Chevrolet are perceived by consumers as selling the most environmentally friendly and fuel-efficient models, according to a new Eco Watch study from Kelley Blue Book Marketing Research.

The top 10 “green” cars of 2008 are (in order):  Toyota Prius, Honda Civic Hybrid, Smart Fortwo, Nissan Altima Hybrid, Mini Cooper, Ford Escape Hybrid, Honda Fit, Mercedes E320 BlueTec, Toyota Highlander Hybrid and the Chevy Tahoe Hybrid.

* * * * *

60% of respondents reported they were “extremely concerned” or “very concerned” about the environment, citing water and air pollution, global warming and energy shortages as their primary issues.

58% were considering a more fuel-efficient vehicle for their next purchase. On average, they said they would be willing to spend up to $2,600 more on an environmentally friendly vehicle.

57% said they had changed their driving habits.

* * * * *

58% who have already changed the type of vehicle they are planning to buy said they would not go back to their former vehicle of choice even if gas prices were to drop to $1 a gallon.

The alternative-fuel technologies they most favored were hybrid engines, hydrogen fuel cells and natural gas vehicles.

They were most skeptical of biofuel, diesel and battery-electric vehicles.

75% said they wished there were more alternative fuel vehicles in the marketplace to choose from.

* * * * *

A lot of Chevy’s perceptions are based on the Volt, which is being heavily advertised, but  isn’t available in the market.

Hybrids, the alternative fuel technology that has receives the most attention, represent only 1.6% of new car sales

* * * * *

Full article:
http://www.brandweek.com/bw/content_display/news-and-features/automotive-travel/e3i0e4fd2428ec797838e295ef4fcbc08fe

* * * * *

clip_image002

And, it will save gas …

October 3, 2008

Excerpted from Rasmussen Reports: “53% Think Driving Age Should be 18 or Older”.September 21, 2008

* * * * *
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that car crashes are the leading cause of death among those between the ages of 15 and 20.  

* * * * *

Just over a week ago, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety issued a new report urging lawmakers to raise the legal driving age to 18 … 53% of adults nationwide think it’s a good idea … 49% of men like the idea, 67% of women do.

Surprisingly, younger adults seem to take the same opinion as their elders on this question.

* * * * *

When asked which age young adults should be allowed to get behind the wheel, 35% said 18 and 5% said 21.

* * * * *
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/53_think_driving_age_should_be_18_or_older

* * * **

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

Economics: The high cost of CAFE …

September 17, 2008

Excerpted from the WSJ: “How to Save Detroit … And $50 Billion”, by Holman Jenkins, September 10, 2008

* * * * *

The Detroit auto makers were all over the two conventions … with  a plea for $50 billion in federal loans. Congress practically owes us this money, Ford, GM and Chrysler argue — because Congress slammed us with new fuel mileage mandates that will cost us $100 billion to meet.

But before rushing to pass the legislation, there’s an easy way to save $50 billion or whatever part of these loans wouldn’t be paid back: Just repeal the fuel economy rules.

It must infuriate the auto makers how readily their critics attribute their problems to their own incompetence. Then how to explain that GM is thriving in Europe, selling small cars that get lots of miles per gallon? Buick is among the biggest selling brands in China. GM is running away with Latin America.

The Big Three’s problem, to be blunt, is North America. They should have pulled out long ago.

* * * * *

Not only did history saddle them with a UAW labor monopoly that their foreign competitors have managed to avoid. Even that might not have been fatal had Congress not enacted its “corporate average fuel economy” rules in the 1970s.

Look at gallons consumed, miles driven, barrels imported or emissions emitted: CAFE has had no significant impact on energy consumption. Its sole practical effect has been to inflict on Detroit the need to produce, with high-cost U.S. labor, millions of small cars designed to lose money.

* * * * *

CAFE has to be the most perverse exercise in product regulation in industrial history. It confronted the Big Three with the choice only of whether to lose a lot of money, by matching Toyota and Honda on quality and features; or somewhat less money, by scrimping on quality and features and discounting, discounting, discounting.

Rationally, they scrimped — and still live under a reputational cloud in the eyes of sedan buyers. Yet notice that their profitable product lines, in which they invest to be truly competitive — such as SUVs, pickups and minivans — hold their own against the Japanese and command real loyalty among U.S. consumers.

* * * * *

It flies in the face of human and business realities to imagine that, generation after generation, Detroit hired idiots while Toyota recruited geniuses — though that’s the usual explanation of Detroit’s troubles.

Had CAFE not existed, there is no reason the Big Three today could not be competitive. As businesses do, they would have allocated capital to products capable of recovering their costs. Investments in fuel efficiency would still have taken place — to the extent consumers valued those investments. That is, if they were profitable.

* * * * *

If Washington found this unsatisfactory, it could have done as the Europeans do and raised fuel taxes to coax the public to make different choices. Politically inexpedient? Well, yes, but that doesn’t mean CAFE is an effective substitute. It isn’t and never was.

* * * * *

Having squandered the domestic auto industry’s capital on millions and millions of cars that lost money, now Congress will squander the taxpayer’s capital. It will lend the auto makers $50 billion to invest in fuel efficiency innovations that, by definition, won’t command from car shoppers a price high enough to cover the cost of making them. Which makes it very unlikely we will get the $50 billion back.

Bottom line: Fifty billion won’t turn CAFE into effective policy. It will do just fine, though, as an indicator of Washington’s willingness to throw good money after bad rather than admit the folly of its own long-running handiwork.

* * * * *
Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122100316976917063.html?mod=todays_columnists

* * * * *

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

Honda – Finally, fuel efficiency is paying strategic dividends …

September 3, 2008

Excerpted from NY Times, “Honda Stays True to Efficient Driving”, by Bill Vlasic, August 26, 2008

* * * * *

During the glory days of big pickups and sport utility vehicles, one automaker steadfastly refused to join the party.

Despite the huge profits that its competitors were minting by making larger vehicles, Honda Motor never veered from its mission of building fuel-efficient, environmentally friendly cars like its Accord sedan, even when the sentiment was “there’s no return on that.”

But in today’s fuel-conscious automotive market, Honda is reaping the rewards for its commitment.

No major automaker in America is doing better than Honda … While competitors are scrambling to shift their product lineups to build more small vehicles and slash their bloated inventories of trucks, Honda can barely keep up with demand, particularly in the subcompact category.

Sales of its tiny Fit have soared … and Honda accelerated the introduction of the 2009 model, which will go on sale Tuesday.

The Fit’s four-cylinder engine gets 34 miles per gallon in highway driving .

Honda’s focus on fuel efficiency is paying off on the bottom line as well … By comparison, G.M. and Ford have lost billions this year as the market has moved away from the big vehicles that once generated the bulk of their profits. Detroit is moving radically to downsize its vehicle lineups.  Even Honda’s larger Japanese rival, Toyota, is hustling to adjust to the rapidly changing United States market.

Honda’s newest factory, in southern Indiana, is set to begin production of Civic compact cars this fall.

* * * * *

Honda’s focus on fuel efficiency and the environmental impact of its vehicles dates back to the Clean Air legislation of the 1960s and 1970s.  Honda adopted an internal motto — “Blue skies for our children” — as a guideline for future vehicle development.

Honda has posted the highest corporate average fuel economy of any automaker for its overall fleet of vehicles over the last 15 years.

Honda has never aspired to build a full line of trucks and S.U.V.’s.  “Even when the large S.U.V.’s and trucks were big sellers, they did not fit with our philosophy.”

* * * * *

When the new plant goes into production in Indiana, Honda’s North American production capacity will increase to 1.4 million vehicles a year to meet the growing demand for its small cars.

* * * * *

Even with the success of its smallest cars, Honda executives concede that the company has some catching up to do with Toyota in hybrid vehicles.

While Honda offers a hybrid version of the Civic, Toyota’s Prius model is the runaway leader in the category.

But Honda recently announced plans to introduce a five-door, hybrid-only model in North America next year to compete with the Prius. Honda is expected to price the vehicle lower than the Prius to attract younger buyers.

Honda is also planning a two-door, sporty hybrid and a hybrid version of the Fit.

* * * * *

At its headquarters here in Torrance, the vehicle that draws the most attention these days is the company’s hydrogen-powered, fuel-cell vehicle dubbed the FCX Clarity …  it represents the next step for a company committed to clean technology.

* * * * *

Full article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/business/26honda.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&ref=business&pagewanted=print

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

Hybrids that go Vroom, Vroom, Vroom …

September 2, 2008

Hybrids are so quiet they actually pose a danger to pedestrians – and especially the blind – who can’t hear the cars approaching.

Reportedly. this is already a concern in many states, particularly on the pedestrian-heavy East coast now joined the debate by fielding its own committee to study the matter.

One company has  designed a system to make hybrid cars produce whatever engine sound the owner might desire.

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/safety/california-studying-ways-to-make-hybrids-louder/

* * * * *      

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Electric and hybrid vehicles may be better for the environment, but the California Legislature says they’re bad for the blind.

It has passed a bill to ensure that the vehicles make enough noise to be heard by visually impaired people about to cross a street.

The Association of International Auto Manufacturers Inc., a trade group, is also studying the problem, along with a committee established by the Society of Automotive Engineers. The groups are considering “the possibility of setting a minimum noise level standard for hybrid vehicles.”  

The state Department of Motor Vehicles says more than 300,000 of the vehicles are on state roads. Officials say they don’t keep statistics on pedestrian accidents involving those vehicles.

http://www.manufacturing.net/News-California-Green-Cars-Need-More-Noise.aspx?menuid=284

* * * * * 

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

* * * * *

Energy – The Case for Doing Everything

August 8, 2008

Excerpted from “It’s Simple: Drill and Conserve”, by Charles Krauthammer.  Aug. 08, 2008

Americans’ greatest concern is the economy, and their greatest economic concern is energy (by a significant margin: 37 percent to 21 percent for inflation). By an overwhelming margin of 2-1, Americans want to lift the moratorium preventing drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, thus unlocking vast energy resources shut down for the last 27 years.

(Some) say that we cannot drill our way out of the oil crisis. Of course not. But it is equally obvious that we cannot solar or wind or biomass our way out. Does this mean that because any one measure cannot solve a problem, it needs to be rejected?

Why must there be a choice between encouraging conservation and increasing supply? The logical answer is obvious: Do both.

Do everything. Wind and solar. A tire gauge in every mailbox. Hell, a team of oxen for every family (to pull their gasoline-drained SUVs). The consensus in the country, logically unassailable and politically unbeatable, is to do everything possible to both increase supply and reduce demand, because we have a problem that’s been killing our economy and threatening our national security. And no one measure is sufficient.

The “green fuels” … are as yet uneconomical, speculative technologies, still far more expensive than extracted oil and natural gas. We could be decades away. And our economy is teetering. Why would you not drill to provide a steady supply of proven fuels for the next few decades as we make the huge technological and economic transition to renewable energy?

Fine, let’s throw a few tens of billions at such things as electric cars and renewablesis and see what sticks. But (understand that) success will not just require huge amounts of money. It will require equally huge amounts of time and luck.

On the other hand, drilling requires no government program, no newly created bureaucracy, no pie-in-the-sky technologies that no one has yet invented. It requires only one thing, only one act. Lift the moratorium. Private industry will do the rest. And far from draining the treasury, it will replenish it with direct taxes, and with the indirect taxes from the thousands of non-subsidized new jobs created.

(In the energy debate), the argument for “do everything” is not rocket science. It is common sense. 

Full commentary:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/drill_and_conserve.html

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

Paris be gone ! A bigger celeb walks the energy talk.

August 8, 2008

Friday cheapshot:

I usually don’t put much stock in celebrity endorsements. 

But in marketing parlance — this one, from a star who was way ahead oh his time — might have “legs” …

 

click picture to make it bigger

 * * * * *

Questions:

1. Wouldn’t it be faster for Fred to leave the car at home and  just walk to work ?

2. Are rock hard wheels more enegy efficient than fully inflated tires ?

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

Energy – Alternative Energy Initiatives

July 21, 2008

Political candidates and pundits are talking like the energy crisis is new news, and even O’Reilly rants that the Bush administration has done absolutely nothing about it.  They conveniently overlook programs aimed at the development of hydrogen fuel, advanced energy technologies, and renewable fuels.

 Click chart to make it bigger

For details, see the DOE summary presentation:
http://www.energy.upenn.edu/docs/EWGP-Milliken-slides.pdf

The cornerstone of the program is the Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI) — which was announced in Bush’s 2006 State of the Union address .  The AEI’s stated goals  are to reduce our dependence on oil (especially foreign sourced) and to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants).

Specifically, the AEI was tasked with accelerating the technical and cost viability of alternative energy technologies for vehicles (e.g. plug-in hybrid vehicles,   fuel cells, and biofuels, including “cellulosic” ethanol derived from agricultural waste, forest residues and dedicated energy crops such as switchgrass), and for homes and businesses (e.g. nuclear power, clean coal, solar, and wind).

An important component of the AEI is critical basic research that should help overcome major technical barriers to the expanded use of technologies such as solar energy, cellulosic ethanol, energy storage, hydrogen fuel cells, and fusion energy.

For details of the AEI:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/energy/energy_booklet.pdf

The initial enacted budget for AEI was $1.77 billion in FY2006; the proposed FY 2009 Budget is  $3.17 billion:
          

http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/Budget09/AdvancedEnergyInitiative1pager.pdf

* * * * *

Observations

1. Critics argue that the too little, too late, misdirected … with too little emphasis on convervation standards and processes.  The critics may be right, but some visibility and credit should be given for getting the ball rolling.

2. The next president will take over with the ball close to the end zone on some of the initiatives.  Watch whoever it is punch it in for the touchdown, dance in the end zone, and claim credit for the entire scoring drive.

3. The Bush team may be the worst marketers in the entire free world.

4. Gotta ask: what did Al Gore do in the 8 years he was hanging around the White House? I guess it’s easier to be bold and visionary when you don’t have responsibility … 

* * * * *

Worth browsing:  the U.S. DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) web site: http://www.eere.energy.gov/

* * * * *

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

 

Idea – Revive the Hybrid Car Tax Credit

July 18, 2008

As of the end of 2007 (before the recent surge in gas prices), there were just under 1 million hybrid vehicles in use in th U.S.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/data/docs/hev_sales_model_year.xls

As I recounted in a prior post, I was surprised that  — for practical purposes —  there aren’t any tax credits available for hybrid cars to offset some of their price premium over conventional autos.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided income tax credits up to $3,400 (depending on the make & model of car), for hybrids purchased by individuals after January 1, 2006. 

 

But, the credits weren’t applicable to taxpayers falling into the Alternative Minimum Tax category, and only the first 60,000 hybrid vehicles sold by each manufacturer qualified.  The allowable credits were phased out as manufacturers approached their 60,000 limits. 

 

For example, a Prius qualified for $3,150 credit on January 1, 2006.  That got cut to $1,585 on October 1, 2006; $785.50 on April 1, 2007; and to zero on October 1, 2007.
 

           

     See  http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tax_hybrid.shtml for current hybrid tax incentives

 

The price premium for hybrids is somewhere between “statistically significant” and — with long payback periods — “economically disqualifying “.

 

So, wouldn’t it make sense to reinstitute some kind of tax incentive to stimulate the shift? It could be done quickly — with the stroke of a couple of pens.  

 

Make it big enough to matter, keep it both simple (no silly sliding scales) and broadly available (folks paying AMTare penalized enough), and watchdog the auto companies and dealers so they don’t just inflate the prices.

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

   

Econ: Hybrid Cars – Tough Sell

July 16, 2008

Summary: Hybrid vehicles offer many advantages: environmental friendliness, HOV lane access, better gas mileage.  But, based strictly on economic value to the customer (EVC), it’s tough to justify buying one – especially since dealers are discounting conventional models during the current auto sales slowdown, and selling hybrids near (or above) sticker prices   I know, I shopped, I bought.  Here’s my story, replete with numbers.

                    * * * * *

OK, after 9 years and 143,500 miles — it was time to trade in my 1999 Lexus RX300 SUV.  And, with gas prices north of $4 per gallon, it made sense to consider a hybrid. 

Buying a hybrid would certainly be the “right” thing to do – more green, less gas,  But, being an economically rational guy (think “cheap”), my decision quickly centered on the economics: would the price premium being charged for hybrids, in effect, pay for itself?

Two decisions simplified my buying process.

First, I still wanted an SUV.  Sorry, but with 2 big dogs and occasional Home Depot trips,  I do enough hauling to justify it psychologically.

Second, Lexus was my brand choice since the RX300 served me well  for almost a decade, and since Lexus has a competitive  advantage in hybrids — thanks to its accumulated experience with Prius.

Specifically, I narrowed my choice set to the Lexus RX350 (updated version of my current car) and its cousin — the Lexus RX400h – a functionally comparable hybrid version.

Before leaving the house, I pulled  price and tech data  from the usual car sites: Yahoo-Autos, Edmunds, Kelly Blue Book, and CarMax … and crunched some numbers.

First, I wanted to know how much I’d save on gas if I bought the hybrid. 

The RX350 is government rated at 17 MPG in city driving and 22 MPG on the highway; the 400h is rated at 26 MPG city and 24 highway.  I was a bit surprised that the only significant difference is on city driving – slow speeds and lots of starts & stops; highway driving is essentially a push.

I drive about 12,000 miles annually (right at the national average).  I don’t keep track of my split between city & highway mileage.  In fact, I’m not exactly sure what defines the distinction, e.g. is driving down Route 7 in northern Virginia at 45 MPH city or highway?  Without belaboring the distinction,  I simply assumed that my miles are split roughly 50 / 50 between city and highway.

Given my driving pattern and  these MPG ratings, I would expect an RX400h to burn 480 gallons of gas each year (6,000 miles at 26 MPG, and 6,000 miles at 24 MPG).  An RX350 would burn 622 gallons each year (6,000 miles at 17 MPG, and 6,000 miles at 22 MPG).  

So, the hybrid would use about 142 fewer gallons of gas annually.  At the current $4 per gallon, that’s an annual savings of about $566 

Next step: compare the gas savings to the price difference in the cars.

The base price of a RX400h is $42,980; the RX350 is $39,100.  So, assuming a comparable set of equally priced options, the “hybrid premium” between the cars is $3,880. 

I checked for available tax incentives that might be available, and was surprised to find that the tax credits  provided by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 had expired for all but a few low volume makes & models.   More on that in a subsequent post.  

So, it looked like I’d be staring at a $3,880 purchase price difference (over $4,000 counting sales taxes) that would take me almost 7 years to breakeven ($3,880 divided by $566 equals 6.85 years).

Note: To be technically “pure”,  the future gas savings I should be discounted back to a present value.  Using a 5% discount rate, the breakeven is pushed out to a little more than 8 years.

Since holding a car for 7 years is the national average, and since I’ve owned my current car for 9 years, it seemed that the hybrid would be a contender.

Reality set in when I got to the local dealer. No surprise, the lot was full of RX 350s , but there were only a couple of RX400h hybrids.  The salesman volunteered that he “had room” to discount the RX350s, but that the hybrids were going “pretty close” to list price.

Sure enough.  After a couple of hours of haggling, The dealer’s “hard” offer was $48,970 for a loaded RX400h hybrid (about 2% off the sticker price), and  $41,500 for a comparably featured RX350 (about 10% off the sticker price).

Bottom line: The real hybrid price premium turned out to be $7,500 – an 18% price spread between the RX350 and the RX400h.

So, my nominal “pay back” period was pushed out to 13 years ($7,500 divided by $566 per year in gas savings equals 13.25 years); the NPV breakeven was pushed out to over 20 years.  Said differently, gas prices would have to double to $8 per gallon (starting today), to get the payback down to average ownership life of about 7 years.

My conclusion: the RX350 had a compelling economic advantage over the RX400h — its hybrid cousin.  While I admit to some guilt , I concluded that $7,500 is a lot of money and 13 years is a long time. Guess which car I drove off the lot … 

                                 * * * * *

Some observations:

1. The experience reaffirmed my view that anybody who thinks they’re pulling anything over a car dealer is fooling themselves.  Man, do they know how to bob & weave with the numbers, and there is no end to the “adders” they try to throw in.  Aggressive negotiating seems to only minimize the “damage”.  What happens to the average guy off the street?

2. I expected even more of a fuel advantage from the hybrid – and didn’t expect the difference to be almost entirely attributable to city driving.

3. I wonder how many folks will just compare list price differentials and understate the hybrid purchase price premium.  They may make the “right” decision – in part, by drawing wrong conclusions re: the economics.

4. The Prius might make sense for anybody who puts on a lot of mileage diving alone (few passengers, no gargantuan pets, no lumber),.  With a price tag in the low $20s, a sizable “installed base” (no notoriety, familiar to mechanics), and gas mileage over 45 MPG —  it makes both economic and environmental sense.  But, even with a Prius, you’re still paying about a dime a mile for gas …

5. I expect auto companies to keep inching hybrid’s sticker prices up and for dealers to “get healthy” selling them at or above sticker prices.  I wouldn’t be ahocked to start seeing “market area adjustments” added on the sticker prices.

6. I was surprised that hybrid tax credits were a thing of the past.  Most of them were phased out in 2007.   More on that topic in a later post.

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

Energy – T. Boone Picken’s Plan

July 10, 2008

T. Boone Picken’s Plan to Escape the Grip of Foreign Oil
OpEd excerpted from the WSJ July 9, 2008

T. Boone Pickens has started running TV ads explaining the severity of the energy crisis and touting wind power as a quick, partial solution.  His WSJ OpEd spells out his plan:

“Each year we import more and more oil. In 1973, the year of the infamous oil embargo, the United States imported about 24% of our oil. In 1990, at the start of the first Gulf War, this had climbed to 42%. Today, we import almost 70% of our oil … [So] our economic engine is now 70% dependent on the energy resources of other countries, their good judgment, and most importantly, their good will toward us.

This year, we will spend almost $700 billion on imported oil, which is more than four times the annual cost of our current war in Iraq … if we don’t do anything about this problem, over the next 10 years we will spend around $10 trillion importing foreign oil. That is $10 trillion leaving the U.S. and going to foreign nations, making it what I certainly believe will be the single largest transfer of wealth in human history.

I have a clear goal in mind  … to reduce America’s foreign oil imports by more than one-third in the next five to 10 years.

Start with wind power  …  the U.S. has the capacity to generate 20% of its electricity supply from wind by 2030 …  [take] the energy generated by wind and use it to replace a significant percentage of the natural gas that is now being used to fuel our power plants.

Today, natural gas accounts for about 22% of our electricity generation in the U.S.  …  use new wind capacity to free up the natural gas for use as a transportation fuel. That would displace more than one-third of our foreign oil imports.

Natural gas is the only domestic energy of size that can be used to replace oil used for transportation, and it is abundant in the U.S. It is cheap and it is clean. With eight million natural-gas-powered vehicles on the road world-wide, the technology already exists to rapidly build out fleets of trucks, buses and even cars using natural gas as a fuel. Of these eight million vehicles, the U.S. has a paltry 150,000 right now.

[To get started] the government must mandate the formation of wind and solar transmission corridors, and renew the subsidies for economic and alternative energy development .

We need action. Now.”

                                      * * * * *

Observations:

1. Gotta like the guy’s passion and clarity of thought.  And, he puts his money where his mouth is – in ads and development capital.

2. Why not? Doesn’t solve the problem completely, but at least it hacks away at it.  No apparent downside. Doesn’t conflict with political agendas. 

3.  My bet? Politicos will take Picken’s ad quote “we can’t drill our way out of the problem” out of context and use it to support drilling bans. 

4. Watch: Congress will convene hearings on wind power and drag their feet.

                                   * * * * * 

Full story at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121556087828237463.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Thanks to Christian Walker (MSB MBA alum) for the heads-up on the article

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

Energy – T. Boone Picken's Plan

July 10, 2008

T. Boone Picken’s Plan to Escape the Grip of Foreign Oil
OpEd excerpted from the WSJ July 9, 2008

T. Boone Pickens has started running TV ads explaining the severity of the energy crisis and touting wind power as a quick, partial solution.  His WSJ OpEd spells out his plan:

“Each year we import more and more oil. In 1973, the year of the infamous oil embargo, the United States imported about 24% of our oil. In 1990, at the start of the first Gulf War, this had climbed to 42%. Today, we import almost 70% of our oil … [So] our economic engine is now 70% dependent on the energy resources of other countries, their good judgment, and most importantly, their good will toward us.

This year, we will spend almost $700 billion on imported oil, which is more than four times the annual cost of our current war in Iraq … if we don’t do anything about this problem, over the next 10 years we will spend around $10 trillion importing foreign oil. That is $10 trillion leaving the U.S. and going to foreign nations, making it what I certainly believe will be the single largest transfer of wealth in human history.

I have a clear goal in mind  … to reduce America’s foreign oil imports by more than one-third in the next five to 10 years.

Start with wind power  …  the U.S. has the capacity to generate 20% of its electricity supply from wind by 2030 …  [take] the energy generated by wind and use it to replace a significant percentage of the natural gas that is now being used to fuel our power plants.

Today, natural gas accounts for about 22% of our electricity generation in the U.S.  …  use new wind capacity to free up the natural gas for use as a transportation fuel. That would displace more than one-third of our foreign oil imports.

Natural gas is the only domestic energy of size that can be used to replace oil used for transportation, and it is abundant in the U.S. It is cheap and it is clean. With eight million natural-gas-powered vehicles on the road world-wide, the technology already exists to rapidly build out fleets of trucks, buses and even cars using natural gas as a fuel. Of these eight million vehicles, the U.S. has a paltry 150,000 right now.

[To get started] the government must mandate the formation of wind and solar transmission corridors, and renew the subsidies for economic and alternative energy development .

We need action. Now.”

                                      * * * * *

Observations:

1. Gotta like the guy’s passion and clarity of thought.  And, he puts his money where his mouth is – in ads and development capital.

2. Why not? Doesn’t solve the problem completely, but at least it hacks away at it.  No apparent downside. Doesn’t conflict with political agendas. 

3.  My bet? Politicos will take Picken’s ad quote “we can’t drill our way out of the problem” out of context and use it to support drilling bans. 

4. Watch: Congress will convene hearings on wind power and drag their feet.

                                   * * * * * 

Full story at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121556087828237463.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Thanks to Christian Walker (MSB MBA alum) for the heads-up on the article

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

Oil Econ: Losing Our Financial Independence ?

July 9, 2008

Pump Prices Hurt Americans Not Just in Pocketbook

Highlights from the WSJ July 8, 2008

Referencing a McKinsey Research Study

 

“Both presidential candidates are focusing on the economy this week, and for good reason: $4-a-gallon gasoline has Americans sliding into pocketbook shock.

 

But pain at the pump is only one reason energy now should be the central issue of this year’s campaign. Here’s the other, more insidious one: High oil prices are shredding America’s financial independence and producing a massive transfer of wealth from U.S. pocketbooks into the hands of suspect actors around the world, including Iran, Venezuela and Russia.

 

The U.S., in other words, now has an energy problem that is not only draining the bank accounts of its own citizens, but filling up the bank accounts of some who work against American interests around the globe … Oil-producing countries are accumulating piles of excess cash that they can use — and are using — to buy pieces of Western companies … (to buy) the  U.S. Treasury bonds that finance the federal government’s budget deficit (foreigners buy 80% of all newly issued Treasury bills) … (and) to advance anti-American political [and military] agendas.

 

To their credit, Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama are trying to raise awareness of the corrosive national-security effects of oil prices. In his recent centerpiece address on energy, Sen. McCain declared: “When we buy foreign oil, we are enriching some of our worst enemies.” As far back as last fall, Sen. Obama said in a speech that money spent on foreign oil “corrupts budding democracies and allows dictators from hostile regimes to threaten the international community.” 
                                              * * * * *

Observations:

 

1.  Right now, about 1/3 of US oil is sourced domestically, about 1/3 comes from friendly nations (Canada, Mexico), and about 1/3 from problematic nations.  Let’sdrive less and drill more to at least cover the most problematic 1/3 of our consumption.

 

2. Both candidates have to stop parsing words and make the issue visceral —  e.g. “roughly $1 of each gallon of $4 gas goes into the pocket of folks who don’t like us and want to hurt us”  — “what are the prospects for long-term job security if US companies are increasingly foreign-owned?”

 

3. Shouldn’t the Congress be doing something a little more action-oriented  than “negotiating to hold a bipartisan energy summit”?  Geez guys, do something already… 
                                               * * * * *    


Full WSJ article:
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB121546528614733687.html

 

McKinsey Global Institute special research study
“The New Power Brokers, Oil, Hedge Funds, Asia” 
http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/The_New_Power_Brokers/index.asp 

 

Brands – GM to reconsider its line-up (again)

July 7, 2008

Excerpt from the Wall Street Journal

“For decades, GM has believed a key to making money in North America was maintaining market share … and having different brands helps the company reach more potential customers and gives it more tools in fighting (competitors). 

The company currently sells vehicles under eight different brands, but most, including Buick, Saturn and Saab, struggle to attract buyers despite offering new models that cost GM billions of dollars to develop.

Critics have said keeping so many brands is a drain on resources and leaves many of its divisions competing with each other.

The company will continue to reconsider its mix of brands. All but Cadillac and Chevrolet (60% of GM sales; 12.5% market share), which GM considers core to its business, are undergoing close scrutiny,

The company has already decided to put its Hummer division up for sale.

(Another brand) under examination is Saturn, a maker of economy cars that analysts believe has never made money in its nearly 20-year history.”

                      * * * * *

Observations:

1. I always say that product is the heart of marketing strategy. Branding can only boost strong products, not perpetually cover up for weak ones.

2. In highly segmented markets (such as autos), a multiple brand strategy makes sense — as long as each brand has the potential to reach critical mass, and duplication of efforts and spending is tightly managed.

3. Remember when Saturn was GM’s star brand — a “new kind of car company” with a cult-like following?  Hmm … sound familiar? 

4. How can we expect struggling auto makers — whose highest priority is just staying alive — to lead the movement to more energy efficient cars? 

See the full article at
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121539865693931653.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news

Idea: Hybridize the Govt Vehicle Fleet

July 3, 2008

Ever notice all of those Post Office mini-trucks cruising their routes?

Bet you have since the USPS is often reported to operate the largest fleet of vehicles in the country (maybe the world). 

Assume that each those vehicles is on the road 6 to 8 hours per day; probably covering 76 to 100 miles per day.  That’s 24,000 to 36,000 miles per year (2 or 3 times an average family vehicle);  At a charitable 15 MPG — that’s about 2000 gallons of gas per year. 

At a Prius-like 45 MPG, that number goes down to about 650 gallons annually — 1,350 gallons less per year.   Multiply that times the number of vehicles in the fleet (thousands),  and we’re talking MILLIONS of gallons of gas. 

Rather than coaxing consumers to buy hybrids one at a time, why not convert the entire USPS fleet in one fell swoop? 

More broadly, why not legislate that all government vehicles be hybrids, flex-fuel, or some other energy saving alternative.  Makes sense to me. 

                                     * * * * *
Side note: According to Phrases.org “fell swoop” means “suddenly; in a single action”.  They say that Shakespeare either coined the phrase, or gave it circulation, in Macbeth, 1605:

MACDUFF: [on hearing that his family and servants have all been killed]
All my pretty ones?
Did you say all? O hell-kite! All?
What, all my pretty chickens and their dam
At one fell swoop?

Numbers: Driving Around

July 1, 2008

According to an ABC News Poll:

The average household owns two cars, trucks or sport utility vehicles … and one in four owns three or more … (Big idea to lower gas consumtion:: raise the driving age to 18 — 16 to 18 year olds don’t vote any way)

220 million adults average an hour and a half a day in their cars … 104 minutes for those with kids, 77 without

An average commute by car is 16 miles … and takes around 30 minutes (obviously not DC)

While about half of commuters have some form of public transportation available, only 4% use it to & from work (mostly city dwellers, minorities and lower-income Americans)

84% of driving commuters go solo … 8% regularly carpool … 20 percent of solo drivers say they’d be interested in carpooling  (yeah right — well mabe if gas stays @ $4 / gallon)

65% oppose higher gasoline taxes … even if the money is earmarked for transportation projects

66% approve of roadside cameras to enforce traffic laws (note: they didn’t survey my family)

For the complete report: http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=485098

Nums: Gas Consumption – Stop Blaming SUVs !

June 30, 2008

Most pundits say that we can curb gas consumption by outlawing SUVs, raising CAFE (MPG)  standards, and just plain driving less.  Here’s what the Federal Highway Administration data says:

1) An average household vehicle is driven slightly more than 12,000 miles per year … up 8% from 1992

2) There were 235 million household vehicles in the US in 2006 (latest available FHWA data) … up 28% since 1992 … about 40% of household vehicles are SUVs, vans, trucks

3) Gas consumtion (by households) was 135 billion gallons in 2006… up 27% since 1992 … almost precisely the same as the increase in the number of vehicles on the road

4) An average car’s actual MPG is 15% better than an average SUV, van, truck’s MPG … 22.4 MPG to 19.4 MPG

5) But, an average SUV is driven 5% fewer miles annually than an average car … 11,857 miles to 12,427 miles … so an average SUV only consumes 10% more gas per year … 612 gallons to 554 gallons

6) Current CAFE standards are 27.5 MPG for cars and 20.7 MPG for SUVs … an average car on the road is getting 22.4 MPG (82% of the CAFE) …  an average SUV on the road is getting 19.4 MPG (94% of the CAFE)

Bottom line: Based on the data, I don’t feel quite so guilty driving my SUV.

Keep reading for data and analysis

    * * * * *

Based on the latest full-year of data available from the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. households consumed over 135 billion gallons of gas 2006 — a 27%  increase since 1992, and a 4.5% increase since 2002. 

It’s conventional wisdom that the way to get consumption down is simply to raise CAFE standards (the MPG performance that new cars must achieve) and to get SUVs off the road.  The hard data suggests a bit more interesting story than that.  (See the complete data table below for details)

Cars vs SUVs

Again, fuel consumtion went up 27% from 1992 to 2006; during that same time period, the number of registered vehicles (passenger cars, vans, SUVs, light trucks) increased by 28% — from 184 million in 1992 to 235 million in 2006.  In other words, the percentage increase in registered vehicles almost perfectly matches the percentage increase in fuel consumption

There’s more to the numbers, though.  The mix of vehicles shifted away from passenger cars to vans, SUVs, trucks. 

In 1992, cars were almost 80% of the total; by 2006 — there were almost 100 million vans, SUVs, and trucks on the road — accounting for over 40% of the total.  No surprise there.

And, everybody knows that SUVs (for shorthand, I’ll just refer to the category of vans, SUVs, and trucka as “SUVs”) use more gas than cars, right? 

That’s true in aggreagte — SUVs as a group do use proportionately more gas than cars, but not by much   In 2006, SUVs were 42.3% of the vehicle mix and consumed 44.7% of the fuel. That’s not as much of a skew as most people think.  Why is that?

Keep in mind that fuel consumption is the product of both MPG (miles per gallon) and the number of miles driven.  SUVs do guzzle gas faster than cars — 19.4 MPG versus 22.4 MPG — a 15.8% difference in fuel efficiency. 

But, that spread gets partially offset by the miles driven.  On average, SUVs were driven 11,857 miles in 2006; cars weredriven 12,427 miles — a 5% conservation advantage to SUVs. 

 

Note: that average miles driven by SUVs fell from 1992 to 2002 .  A possible rationale is that many of them are substituting for and being used as cars, which historically have racked up lower average annual mileage.

So, an average SUV does use more gas per year than an average car, but the difference is only about 10%  — 612 gallons per SUV to 554 gallons per car.

Bottom line: SUVs are bad, but not as bad as many people make them out to be — they’re driven less and the actual MPG gap  has narrowed considerably (keep reading)

CAFE Standards (CAFE = Corporate Average Fuel Economy)

It’s hard to argue against CAFE standards.  There may be a limit as to how high they can be pushed, but we certainly haven’t reached that point.

The current CAFE standards (27.5 MPG for cars; 20.7 MPG for SUVs) have been in place for almost 15 years.  The actual fuel efficiency being achieved by the US “fleet” is 22.4 MPG for cars, and 19.4 MPG for SUVs.  In other words, the fleet average for cars is only 18% below the CAFE standard; SUVs achieve actual fuel efficiency almost 94% of their CAFE standard.  Why is that? 

Click  chart to make it bigger

Well, for openers, the CAFE standard for SUVs is lower.  But, more important, there’s an age mix of vehicles in operation — some cars may pre-date CAFE standards and drag down their average.  Since SUVs are relatively new to the scene, it’s seems reasonable to expect the fleet of SUVs to be newer and in closer compliance to the CAFE standards. 

So what?

1) Put more vehicles on the road and you’ll consume more gas — plain & simple.

2) Most fuel usage analyses focus on MPG — specifically CAFE standards — rather than actual MPG, or better yet, gallons per vehicle (per year).

3) Sure, less fuel is consumed if people drive higher MPG vehicles and hold mileage constant — but it doesn’t look like they do — as MPG goes up, so does mileage.

4) Pre-CAFE cars may be more of a problem than SUVs . (Note: I own an SUV and I don’t drive it that much).

Click  tables to make them bigger

 

Source: Federal Highway Administration,
            Annual Statistics, Report VM-1
            http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/hss/hsspubs.htm