Miken

What Lies Ahead for Hybrid Car Investors?

Through a number of factual errors pointed out previously, the author has somehow arrived at the right short term conclusion in my opinion. PHEV's (not BEV's) are the near term right step. We should do a serious grid analysis (done by serious people with no advance agenda) to determine what kind of energy draw will be necessary to accommodate this technology.

I do think that research and infrastructure analysis should continue with hydrogen powered vehicles however.

How Trucks and Tariffs Contributed to GM, Chrysler Failures

Wayne:

They're sitting on their lots simply because they can't sell them. All three (Toyota, Honda, and Nissan) have tried without success to get into this market and failed.

Please see my other post above.


On May 06 11:58 AM WayneS wrote:

> When I go past a Toyota dealership, all I see are pickups and SUVs.
>
> They must be (were) making a profit on these as this is how they
> are financing their hybrids.
> As long as gasoline is cheap, Americans will buy pickups and SUVs.
>
> Gasoline gets cheaper every year. A stiff tax is the only way people
> will buy the economical vehicles they outwardly claim they want.

How Trucks and Tariffs Contributed to GM, Chrysler Failures

The theme of the article would be valid if the foreign producers had not failed so miserably in building full sized pick up trucks in this country, thus avoiding the tariffs. The Toyota Tundra, Honda Ridgeline, and Nissan Titan have all failed to sell adequately to reach the top ten in truck sales. Ford has sold 110,336 F Series trucks, GM has sold 124,501 ( combined Silverados and Sierras), and Chrysler has sold 64,522 Rams in the first 4 months of 2009. Each of the foreign manufacturers have sold less than 30,000 units for the same time period.

Actually, I did see a Ridgeline yesterday, it was the blue one.

Chrysler's Bankruptcy: Union-Management Relationships Unlikely to Change in Detroit

Succeeding is different than existing. I have 40+ years being involved in these matters so I think I have a right to express my opinion without being questioned by you.

No, the UAW did not want the company to fail. On the other hand, they didn't want them to succeed either. The UAW prefers that the company be essentially a breakeven arrangement where all profits are funneled back to the membership which puts the company in a precarious position when the economy tanks, and here we are.

A successful company has adequate cash and liquid assets on hand to whether these times, unfortunately, those assets became a target of the UAW leadership. The UAW is paying for this miscalculation. I do believe that the UAW had a legitimate purpose for many years gaining decent wages and benefits. The problem was that when they achieved these goals, they didn't change their mission and continued to fight for the same goals pricing themselves out of the market in the process. No vision.


On May 03 01:44 PM Thomas C wrote:

> This is the foundation of your argument..?
> " The union had no real reason to see the car companies succeed.
> They just wanted their wages maintained, their pension fully funded
> and their healthcare.”
> To this i say my friend you are a moron. Why would i want the company
> i worked for for 33 yrs to fail ? Union wages and compnsation make
> up 10 % of their total cost. When they were making billions of dollars
> for years, it was not my decision on how to blow the money or what
> prouducts to come out with. All we did was put together what they
> give us together. Have your ever worked a line? Try it and then tell
> me what your worth to them. And this is the best you can come up
> with. No my friend and i use that loosely, you are the parasite here.
> Get a real job that you know even a tad about . Then again you are
> probably a non union worker eh..?

Chrysler's Bankruptcy: Union-Management Relationships Unlikely to Change in Detroit

The UAW is not a concern of mine. They won't have control on the Chrysler (or maybe GM) BOD. Gettelfinger is correct in saying that the stock is not owned by the UAW, it is owned by the UAW VEBA. Maybe a small but important distinction. The VEBA will be run by a board consisting of 5 UAW appointed members, and 6 independent directors appointed by the courts. The Chairman is going to be Robert Naftaly, former CEO of BCBS PPO.

The concern to me is the government's shares and representation on the Chrysler/GM boards, especially GM. Imagine a scenario where GM wants to make a sizeable investment overseas, after all GM is a multi national company. The fact is that the growth in the auto world is in the Asia Pacific rim, and if you want to be a serious car company, you have to be there. How will a bunch of political hacks loyal to someone other than profit motivation react. Will they see the value of the investment, or will they follow a politically correct path?

Also, will the government hacks exert enough pressure on product development to polarize the portfolio to all smaller/hybrid cars. If a car company had that portfolio in periods of $2 gas like the present, the data shows that they will not sell cars. Prius sales are down over 50% currently.

I also believe they would under estimate the American consumer in that the vast majority of consumers know that hybrids have prohibitively long payback periods.

Like I say, it's not the UAW, it's the U.S. Government to be concerned about.

GM Forcing More than 1,000 Dealerships to Close

Do we really even need dealers? The internet is quickly dismantling the non value added practices of the middle man in almost every other industry. Research shows that the vast majority of consumers have already 'built' their car on the internet. They may be something that is simply no longer required.

Regional service centers could be strategically placed to be convenient for warranty work, along with new cars on display for those who want to kick the tires might be all that's required. One thing that has been learned with the Saturn experience is that people would rather know what the price is without having to go to every dealer to find the cheapest price. Then performing the pricing ballet while the sales person 'goes to check with the boss'. Have a financing expert on site and you're good to go.

The other thing that would be avoided is the monthly dance to award dealers with bonuses to do their job, not to mention the sales man complaining about the factory to a customer.

Hmmm.

Why Chrysler Needs to Declare Bankruptcy

Honest question....why should they care about how many dealers they have? They're just retail outlets. Is there something in the franchise agreement that I don't know about?

German Press: Fiat to Sign Deal with Opel, Not Chrysler

Fiat and GM Europe (mostly Opel) have a history. One part of the failed GM/Fiat venture that was beneficial was the exchange of powertrain technology. Fiat's small diesel engine technology was one of the things that GM was interested in and vice versa for gas engines. In fact, that's why GM Powertrain located its European headquarters in Turin, Italy.

So there is more of a 'known entity' with Fiat and GM. For the life of me, I can't quite understand why Fiat would be that interested in Chrysler other than the distribution system and ready made entree to the U.S. market. While the European unions (I.G. Metallurgy) are not wall flowers, they at least don't have the mentality that the UAW has in terms of potentially blowing up the company to get what they want. It just seems that Opel would be a better fit.

China Looks to Electrify Our Cars

I would like one person to prove to me that ANY hybrid makes economic sense. For example, compare the Toyota Corolla to a Prius. Both within 200 lbs. of each other, wheelbase less than 4" different, basically would be appealing to the same customer from a size standpoint. The Corolla base model is $16,150 and the Prius is $23,375, a difference of $7225. Based on the EPA estimated combined mileage, the Corolla gets 30 mpg and the Prius 46.

At $2 per gallon gas, and driving 12,000 miles per year, it would take 26.0 years to pay off the premium cost for the Prius. At $4 per gallon, it would take 13 years, of course.

An even better comparison would be the Honda Civic and the Hybrid Civic. The regular Civic gets 29 mpg and the hybrid 42. There is a $7545 difference in base price. Using the same calculations it would take 29 years to pay off the premium.

If you want to save the world, by all means, drive a hybrid. If you just want to save money....not a smart idea.

Fed Considers GM Buy-In: Digging a Deeper Hole

Another finance person pontificating. I'm going to be ill.

Let me tell you something Tom, you and your Wall Street pal's days are numbered. You have shown us that you cannot manage yourselves, let alone giving the car business advice....keep your advice. You people are always able to explain why today's market went up or down but fall woefully short when trying to predict the future. You are frauds and people like you are trying to perpetuate the illusion that you know something we don't. I for one, am sick to death of hearing it.

When you all fix your own business, give me a call. Another example of the unabashed arrogance of the financial world is criticizing the government for LOANING the car companies money is the complete lack of discussion on the amount of BAILOUTS given to the banks. Hello.....what about that?? How much went to the banks vs the automakers?? Never mind, we know.

Cars: What It Means to 'Buy American'

Per cent of parts manufactured outside the U.S. is only one metric. If one looks at the entire process from cradle to grave, there is a much more illustrative way to measure content.

From GM's most recent 10-K, and Toyota's most recent 20-K, it shows that even though Toyota sells 33.2% of their vehicles in North America, only 12.0% of their people are here. On the other hand, GM sells 42.7% of their vehicles in NA while employing 47.7% of their people here.

I think this is an even more telling statistic because it goes directly to the number of jobs, whether they may be union represented, management, engineering, purchasing, etc.

While both companies are multi nationals, it's clear which is American based.

I wonder how many Japanese government purchased American cars there are in Tokyo?

Doubtful That Chrysler, GM Will Avoid Bankruptcy

My compliments to the author, I think he/she has outlined the complexities involved very well.

My approach would be to get it settled once and for all. I would gather all the stakeholders together and outline what I need from each one. That includes the UAW, bondholder representatives, suppliers, dealers, etc.

I would give them a couple of weeks, if I didn't get a positive response from all of them I would put myself in Chapter 11, the government be damned.

The people that I feel the most sorry for are the retirees. Oh I know many begrudge the retirees their 'lavish' packages, but don't judge too fast. My 88 year old mother who gets $800 per month from GM doesn't have a 55 foot yacht....but also didn't break the law. There has to be some resolution for these people.

Frankly I couldn't care less about the bondholders or the UAW. If it wouldn't hurt the innocents so much, I wouldn't mind to see both go out of existence.

Five Reasons Not to Buy American Cars

Consumer Reports is not someone that I would take advice from. It is a small group of elitists that decide if it's a car that THEY like. They are led by David Champion who is from that hot bed of automotive excellence, England.

I would prefer to be guided by J.D. Powers. On the latest reliability survey in which Buick beat both Lexus and Toyota (and everybody else for that matter) over 40,000 owners gave their opinions. That means something to me.


On Apr 01 04:06 PM Lewis Bucy wrote:

> Rick, why are you so angry ? I sense this anger in your article
> ...did you have a bad experience at one of the domestic auto makers
> years ago? Times have changed... and I suggest you do your homework...
> Consumers Reports got caught last year ..stating one of the new Ford
> offerings was average ...we all found out lately they didn't even
> test it ...and just stated it based on "historical" info....they
> apoligized ..but hardly anyone noticed....

Five Reasons Not to Buy American Cars

Here's a another way to look at it.

Toyota sells 33.2% of their vehicles in North America, while employing 12.% of the people here.

GM sells 42.7% of their vehicles here and employs 47.7% of their people here.

Data from GM's latest 10-K and Toyota's latest 10-K.

To think that Toyota's value stream is the same as GM's for a car ASSEMBLED here is the same is dangerously naive. Particularly when you considered that there are obstructionist walls built around their home market.


On Apr 01 02:16 PM babyray wrote:

> 5 reasons not to buy a Honda or Toyota!
> 1. A majority of their operations & employees are in foriegn
> countries
> 2. 65% to 85 % of their parts are coming in from Japan. Yes that
> includes the southern assembly plants.
> 3.Niether company gave a dime to a Sept 11 charity. (GM gave 1 million
> and donated trucks).
> 4. American Companies quality rankings and plant effiency is equal
> to and at times surpasses the foriegn companies. (you wont hear that
> on FOX News).
> 5. Pearl Harbor.

Five Reasons to Say Yes to American Cars

Thank you Mr. Newman. What a relief to see someone in the media giving U.S. cars a break. Now if only the U.S. government would do its job and develop an energy policy, industrial policy and a health care policy the American car companies could be viable WITHOUT loans.

Many other countries understand what a manufacturing base means to a successful economy. The value stream is significantly more beneficial than any other sector. Real people work in manufacturing...we're not trying to scheme another fancy financial tool that is unregulated so we can steal money from people. We aren't selling something that others made. We're not just adding our mark up, we're adding our VALUE.

Thanks again.