posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 10:22 AM
This is long . . . so it continues in a second post below this one . . .
This may or may not be the right forum for this diatribe, but in my pea little brain, it all ties in with what’s happening in terms of bankrupting
the automotive industry.
The first thing that needs to be said is that all this talk about how ‘stupid’ the management teams are at Chrysler, General Motors and Ford needs
to stop as there is a litany of things that have gone into the propagation of this mess.
Honestly, the problems in the industry are not because they are crappy companies, rather they’ve been lead into the inevitable trap of greed-fed
growth with an expectation of blind consumer loyalty, cost notwithstanding.
This is a recipe that took decades to perfect, but he final proof . . . the pudding . . . so to speak is undeniable in that the industry cannot
continue on its present course.
Not so long ago, the annual volume of car sales in the US was somewhere between 17 and 18 million units per year. That will drop to about ten million
this year. What industry can absorb a 40 percent drop in sales? While that answer is pretty clear, what cause that decline is not an easily answered
question.
One can only postulate but if the US has 300 million people and the average family is approximately 3.17 people, one can extrapolate that to
100,000,000 households in the US. If everyone replaced their vehicle with a new car every year, annual vehicle sales would also be 100,000,000. But
government figures show that in 2001, the average vehicle ages was approximately nine years leaving you with an annual vehicle sales figure of 11
million units per year.
Realistically, we’re pretty close to that figure as it stands. If you factor in the extrinsic economic factors, sales figures ought reasonably to be
somewhat lower as consumers are holding on to what little cash they have, if any. Add to that the credit woes and those who do want to buy, really
can’t.
Throw in the price of fuel, add a product mix that does not lend itself to efficiency and you’ve got a recipe for disaster.
Using those figures, we’ve almost doubled the required output in recent years which results in saturation of both the new and used car markets.
You’ve got to add into the mix the fact that there is an ever increasing presence of competitors . . . you’ve got Toyota, Nissan, Honda,
Volkswagen, Mercedes, BMW, Hyundai, Kia, Mazda, all rather successfully vying for their share of a shrinking market. There’s a handful of upstarts
further vying for their niche through ultra low cost ‘disposable’ vehicles growing in popularity in countries such as India, China and the
like.
In short, production requirements have diminished dramatically therefore it is only logical that people be laid off and production facilities are
mothballed.
That’s a big problem for the big three considering that even when these plants are idled, workers are still being paid based on things such as the
‘jobs bank’ and ‘supplemental unemployment benefits’. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. The big three still have their management costs to
consider, along with additional cost they continue to incur such as taxes on facilities, utilities on mothballed plants, interest payments on existing
debt, health, welfare and pension benefit costs that continue to accrue during periods of layoff, depreciation and the like.
So, if they’re not producing cars, not selling cars and doing nothing to cover the basic expenses, they’re going to bleed money.
And that they are . . . GM’s balance sheet is roughly $2 billion further in the red each month, with Ford showing a monthly cash leak of
approximately $1 billion based on the fact they showed an overall operating loss of $2.98 billion in the third quarter of 2008. Chrysler, a privately
owned interest, claims to have lost approximately $3 billion in the third quarter of this year.
Whatever the figures, it looks worse than bleak. Face facts . . . the North American industry is operating at a loss of $4 billion per month.
Again, no industry can survive those losses long term.
It appears that regardless of government backed ‘rescue’ or ‘bailout’ efforts, unless the economic landscape changes quickly, all three will
eventually run out of operating funds well before any upturn in our economy currently anticipated by some bobblehead in the Fed to be fourteen months
from now.
That, in a nutshell, means bankruptcy yet all three honchos of the Shrinking Three refuse to accept that suggestion.
So, how do you change that landscape? Cut costs and/or increase revenue.
The same executive triumvirate who refuse to utter the ‘b’ word claim they’ve already cut costs, trimmed fat, sold assets and slashed pretty
much everywhere to hoard whatever cash possible. I the next breath, they claim that their efforts are not working.
Thus the beggar’s banquet on Capital Hill which will not solve any problems rather it just buys the automotive companies more time to find a fix to
the industry’s ills which basically boil down to the fact that the costs of production are too high and the sales are too low.
Currently, there really isn’t much they can do about sales. The economy in general is in the crapper and, as stated before, that isn’t expected to
change for more than a year. The only other option is to cut costs.
The Union’s have already said ‘no more concessions’, despite the remaining legacy costs that add approximately $2,000 to each vehicle and the
well-paid members of the UAW bargaining units.
GM has already ‘sourced’ work to third world countries to the point that the supply sector has been decimated. There really is little to no way
they’re going to cut a lot of cost there voluntarily. Many suppliers across North America are in the same boat . . . they’re struggling to
survive. All of the big three are continually shrinking their North American supply base in favour of offshore interests with whom those suppliers
cannot compete due to wages, benefits, government legislation, taxes and so on.
Also in that supply sector, you’ve got interests such as steel companies that have felt the ravages of the economy for decades, and have faced
industry-wide shrinking due to the influx of similarly low priced steel from off shore.
continued