Let Detroit Go Bankrupt

gsaldivar

Diamond Member
Apr 30, 2001
8,691
1
81
Let Detroit Go Bankrupt
By MITT ROMNEY
Published: November 18, 2008

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won?t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course ? the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support ? banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around ? and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit?s automakers.

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota?s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product ? it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries ? from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, ?Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.?

You don?t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.

The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms ? all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies ? especially fuel-saving designs ? that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don?t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don?t fire the best dealers, and don?t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can?t meet.

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research ? on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like ? that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

But don?t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass ? they bet on management and they lost.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
I thought it was a good article.

I still want to know how $10-12B to GM (half of proposed bailout to them) is going to save a company hemorrhaging $5B/month.
 

sunzt

Diamond Member
Nov 27, 2003
3,076
3
81
How big a kick in the balls are you willing to take if it meant you get to be a cripple for the next several years rather than die off of government welfare?
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
absolutely not.

he has some good points, but in general this would be too much of an economic shock, and bankruptcy would drive away many potential clients.
 

Jiggz

Diamond Member
Mar 10, 2001
4,329
0
76
We all know it's the only way to go! Except our liberal friends still think dumping money on a bottomless business model is the way to fix it! Ask Barney and he'll tell you!
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I thought it was a good article.

I still want to know how $10-12B to GM (half of proposed bailout to them) is going to save a company hemorrhaging $5B/month.

Get them by until BHO takes office?
 
Dec 10, 2005
28,142
12,796
136
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
absolutely not.

he has some good points, but in general this would be too much of an economic shock, and bankruptcy would drive away many potential clients.

And how much would taxpayers get shafted with when they drop their huge pension obligations on the Federal Government?
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
I would think restructuring would help in the long run. Completely revamp the managerial structure, the corporate climate, and renegotiate new contracts and agreements across the board. A lean, mean, 21st century business may emerge. America loves a chastened and repentant sinner.

What the hell is the alternative... these companies have been near-death since the 80s and it only gets worse. Giving them billions of dollars.Will.Do.Absolutely.Nothing.
 

aphex

Moderator<br>All Things Apple
Moderator
Jul 19, 2001
38,572
2
91
If they are too big to fail, they were too big to exist in the first place. I say let em die.
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,162
136
Except our liberal friends still think dumping money on a bottomless business

You don?t even get it.
Its NOT about the industry thats in question.
We all, they all, know something has to give at some point.
The bailout is only about saving one million+ jobs NOW.
After that, their future is up to them.
I don?t think conservatives, any more than liberals, want to see unemployment go up by one mill+ just right now.
That would effect even YOUR job security.
Are you ready to go job hunting in today?s job environment?
If you have to ask "how would that effect me?", then you really need a reality check.

 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I thought it was a good article.

I still want to know how $10-12B to GM (half of proposed bailout to them) is going to save a company hemorrhaging $5B/month.

I believe the money will be used to layoff workers and close plants hopefully leaving to cost savings that will reduce the cash burn rate. That is the first step in their plans to become profitable again. I'm very skeptical of it.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: sportage
Except our liberal friends still think dumping money on a bottomless business

You don?t even get it.
Its NOT about the industry thats in question.
We all, they all, know something has to give at some point.
The bailout is only about saving one million+ jobs NOW.
After that, their future is up to them.
I don?t think conservatives, any more than liberals, want to see unemployment go up by one mill+ just right now.
That would effect even YOUR job security.
Are you ready to go job hunting in today?s job environment?
If you have to ask "how would that effect me?", then you really need a reality check.
Dumping money into the automakers is merely delaying the inevitable. Whether we take the hit now or in 6 months we still have to take the hit eventually. If people get layed off I'd rather the government use those billions to support the unemployed and provide some alternative solutions, rather than have it go into a big hole in Detroit.
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
absolutely not.

he has some good points, but in general this would be too much of an economic shock, and bankruptcy would drive away many potential clients.

And how much would taxpayers get shafted with when they drop their huge pension obligations on the Federal Government?

All those 55 y/o retirees would have to enter back into the workforce.

It's not a bailout of the big three it's a payoff to the unions.

Isn't it great how the Dem's(mostly) pass the cafe standards and the tax payers get to fund it.

 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
If they really need a loan, divert that stupid CAFE loan away from useless green vehicles and over to other operations.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: winnar111
If they really need a loan, divert that stupid CAFE loan away from useless green vehicles and over to other operations.

If it was really a loan they needed and it would allow them to turn around - why aren't banks lining up to loan them money? Oh wait... it's too risky...so lets let the tax payers take the risk...
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: winnar111
If they really need a loan, divert that stupid CAFE loan away from useless green vehicles and over to other operations.

If it was really a loan they needed and it would allow them to turn around - why aren't banks lining up to loan them money? Oh wait... it's too risky...so lets let the tax payers take the risk...

I guess loan is the wrong word....its funding from Congressional Democrats to enforce their silly CAFE mandate.

Of course, for whatever reason, Democrats want to restrict that funding to maintain their 2020 CAFE mandate rather than allow GM to spend it on short term operations.....
 

woodie1

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2000
5,947
0
0
Good article. Don't know enough to argue the merits of all of it but I don't think the taxpayer should be footing the bill for all these years of a poorly run dynasty.
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: winnar111
If they really need a loan, divert that stupid CAFE loan away from useless green vehicles and over to other operations.


:thumbsup:
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: winnar111
If they really need a loan, divert that stupid CAFE loan away from useless green vehicles and over to other operations.

If it was really a loan they needed and it would allow them to turn around - why aren't banks lining up to loan them money? Oh wait... it's too risky...so lets let the tax payers take the risk...

I guess loan is the wrong word....its funding from Congressional Democrats to enforce their silly CAFE mandate.

Of course, for whatever reason, Democrats want to restrict that funding to maintain their 2020 CAFE mandate rather than allow GM to spend it on short term operations.....

Congress can set CAFE standards as high as they want, those who want a fuel-efficient car are going to buy a Honda or Toyota and almost certainly not going to buy a Big 3 product. Would make more sense to repeal CAFE altogether and cede the subcompact/compact market, and allow Detroit to focus on larger cars and SUVs (which is where lies any competitive advantage they do have).
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
absolutely not.

he has some good points, but in general this would be too much of an economic shock, and bankruptcy would drive away many potential clients.

And how much would taxpayers get shafted with when they drop their huge pension obligations on the Federal Government?

All those 55 y/o retirees would have to enter back into the workforce.

It's not a bailout of the big three it's a payoff to the unions.

Isn't it great how the Dem's(mostly) pass the cafe standards and the tax payers get to fund it.

QFT

There needs to be a gov't structured bankruptcy and reorg.
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
Agree with him 100%, and I especially liked this part:

I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research ? on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like ? that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration.
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,504
2
81
Good article - understanding how business works has never been a problem for Romney - getting people to like him - that's another story.

My thoughts on the whole mess that is the big 3 - UAW is party to blame - yes, they had a purpose 40-50 years ago, but the salaries at their plants are RIDICULOUS. I know a few people that work at a very large GM factory, and they make 40-50hr for doing very little work. Factor in the pension plans in place, and it's just sucking money out of the process.

The complete lack of preparedness for an oil 'crisis' - like the ridiculous gas prices we've just been through - where are the American Hybrid/Electric cars? Why hasn't more money been spent on alternative engine technology? The basic design of the combustion engine has changed very little since cars first hit the scene 100+ years ago.

I still have to point back to the gas crisis in the mid 70's - that should have been our wake-up call to get moving on alternative energy sources for the auto industry, but the oil lobby crushed any plans that were brought to the table.

A certain Senator, who ran for President in 1988 - preached as far back as then about the need to develop alternative fuel sources, but was largely ignored. Sadly, when he would later become VP, he did little to push that agenda forward - only in his work in the subsequent years, after another failed presidential bid, has he again come to the forefront of this issue. I always have one vivid memory of the 2000 elections in this regard - Bush was speaking to a crowd in Michigan or WI, and he openly mocked Gore's plan of providing tax breaks to owners of hybrid or electric cars - he said something like "my opponent wants to give people a tax break who drive electric cars....I don't drive an electric car - do you? How does that help America?" - and of course the sheep at the rally whooped it up, and GWB gave that little grin he has when he thinks he has come up with something clever.

Not so funny now, is it?

I don't think all 3 US car companies can continue to exist, bail-out or no bailout.

All three companies should have their CEO's - if not their entire upper-management teams - fired.

Union contracts need to be re-done - or hire all new workforces ready to work for reasonable wages and benefits.

The bigger, unseen danger here is all of the people that work for industries tied to these 3 companies - paint companies, part suppliers, repair shops, metal industries, etc, etc. If the big 3 all close up shop, it's a domino effect into those people as well - particularly in the states surrounding MI, like OH, IN, IL, WI
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
I think that the religious really screwed the pooch this election cycle more than any other. They had the perfect candidate right there talking sense about the land mine laden field that we were and still are treading through but they couldn't set their prejudices aside long enough to realize it.

If they would have nominated Romney instead of McCain, he would have crushed Obama in the debates on the economy and may have won among the moderates and independents when the shit hit the fan in the election. He has all of the business acumen to speak on the topic and the ability to say it in a way that most can understand and shows enough common sense to realize that you need to be able to compromise and work with the opposition to get things done.

McCain's thirst for power was his downfall. He chose Palin because he wanted to appeal to the base as the only way to get himself elected. Ironically, if he had chosen Romney, he could have hid in the background and sent Romney out to address the press and he just followed his talking points.