Say GM files for bankruptcy...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Parasitic

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2002
4,000
2
0
I support restructuring of GM and Ford if bankruptcy is what it takes...people were uneasy about United a few years back and they seem fairly stable now.

I would still buy Ford and GM vehicles even if they went belly-up.
 

Imdmn04

Platinum Member
Jan 28, 2002
2,566
6
81
Originally posted by: sactoking
Originally posted by: dartworth
Originally posted by: BrownTown
well the bankruptcy judge could void all their union contracts so they don't have to pay absurd amounts of money for labor and then maybe they will be successful again...

they don't pay their workers "absurd" amounts of money...

$25/hr at Toyota
$27-28/hr at UAW

These are average wages.

The AVERAGE Toyota wage earner gets $52,000 per year. The AVERAGE UAW wage earner gets $56,160-58,240 per year. This is in regions (Michigan, Mississippi, Louisiana, etc.) where the average wage is $12-13/hr. These jobs are also unskilled labor. If that isn't an 'absurd' amount of money for the region and skill, then neither is $250,000,000 for 9 months as a CEO.

Those are wages.

Total compensation has GM paying twice as much per worker than Toyota when you include all the benefits.

In fact, an average GM worker has a better total compensation package than an average professor.
 

Falloutboy

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2003
5,916
0
76
Originally posted by: WaTaGuMp
Here is a dumb idea, start making cars people want to buy.

GM has actually done the best of the big 3 in modernizing there product line, unfortionally when you are stuck with the unions that saps up ALOT of cash that could go toards R&D. also the fact that the unions make it impossible for GM to modernize the factories so they use less workers like toyota and other foriegn plants.
 

Cattlegod

Diamond Member
May 22, 2001
8,687
1
0
they would close up shop. they wouldn't have any financing to go through the bankruptcy because no one would lend to them.
 

WaTaGuMp

Lifer
May 10, 2001
21,207
2,506
126
Originally posted by: Falloutboy
Originally posted by: WaTaGuMp
Here is a dumb idea, start making cars people want to buy.

GM has actually done the best of the big 3 in modernizing there product line, unfortionally when you are stuck with the unions that saps up ALOT of cash that could go toards R&D. also the fact that the unions make it impossible for GM to modernize the factories so they use less workers like toyota and other foriegn plants.

The bottom line in any of it still comes down to the products you are selling. Yes there are ways to trim the costs of building them but in the end what good is a cheaper product thats still not the same quality as foreign auto makers. My dad is one of those buy american type of thinking, I am the kind that buys the best product for the money I am going to spend. I have never been a fan of american cars and mostly due to the style looks etc, the quality is another story.
 

Falloutboy

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2003
5,916
0
76
Originally posted by: Cattlegod
they would close up shop. they wouldn't have any financing to go through the bankruptcy because no one would lend to them.

goverment would prolly back the loans.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
People would quit buying their cars. Would you buy a car from a company in bankruptcy?
 

Dulanic

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2000
9,969
592
136
Originally posted by: TipsyMcStagger
Obviously not the same industry, but Delta's emerged from bankruptcy fairly well.

Difference.... delta sells you a flight and you take it, your relationship is now done with them for this service. GM sells a car and has to warranty it for years.... if it breaks down, parts are needed. Where do these things come from if GM is gone?
 
Sep 29, 2004
18,656
68
91
Short term:
Dow 6000?

Long term (years):
People will have new jobs installing solar panels and windmills while others go work for the big 2 since there will be a spike in demand there. GM should merge with another company that is in pain. If Ford, it would be interesting. They'd probably produce the Corvette for 7 years, then the Mustang and flip between the two. There can only be one after all :)
 

KLin

Lifer
Feb 29, 2000
30,517
808
126
Originally posted by: Dulanic
Originally posted by: TipsyMcStagger
Obviously not the same industry, but Delta's emerged from bankruptcy fairly well.

Difference.... delta sells you a flight and you take it, your relationship is now done with them for this service. GM sells a car and has to warranty it for years.... if it breaks down, parts are needed. Where do these things come from if GM is gone?

They'll come from the USAC(United States Automaker Corporation). ;)
 
Sep 29, 2004
18,656
68
91
Originally posted by: dartworth
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: dartworth
Originally posted by: BrownTown
well the bankruptcy judge could void all their union contracts so they don't have to pay absurd amounts of money for labor and then maybe they will be successful again...

they don't pay their workers "absurd" amounts of money...

double what toyota pays down the street isn't absurd?

you need to check your facts...

you need to check your facts... (funny how this is a two way street. What are your "facts"?
 
Sep 29, 2004
18,656
68
91
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
Originally posted by: dartworth
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: dartworth
Originally posted by: BrownTown
well the bankruptcy judge could void all their union contracts so they don't have to pay absurd amounts of money for labor and then maybe they will be successful again...

they don't pay their workers "absurd" amounts of money...

double what toyota pays down the street isn't absurd?

you need to check your facts...

IIRC, they get something like $30/hour not including benefits (though new hires are much lower).

$30/hour is 60k/year for "unskilled" labor.

i'm not putting anyone down.. but that's better than many "skilled" out of college jobs (ie, engineers start, on average, around 50k-ish)

That is what is tottally Fed up even where I work. I spent 4 years learning to be an engineer and these idiots I went to school with that have no motivation in life get similar pay? Take about people that have a sense of entitlement.

Another fix is to unionize engineers. Never gets far though. But hell, I'm willing to demand twice the salary of a union person. That sounds about right in common sense land.
 
Sep 29, 2004
18,656
68
91
Originally posted by: jiggahertz
Originally posted by: ElFenix
oh sorry it was $48 total benefits per hour at toyota and $74 at GM. no idea if that considers GM's job bank. if it doesn't, then the GM number is ever worse in comparison to toyota. the latest contract might have helped that difference a bit but that's like letting someone have just enough air that they choke even more slowly.

Yeah, I think this is the chart you're referring to

Text

Ummm? That is the company as a whole. We only care about blue collar numbers.
 

lykaon78

Golden Member
Sep 5, 2001
1,174
9
81
Originally posted by: maddogchen
you guys are wrong in looking at the wages per hour. that is not what is killing GM, its the pensions they are still paying out.

QFT
 

Squisher

Lifer
Aug 17, 2000
21,204
66
91
Those ~$70 figures are "fully loaded labor costs" that are put out by the company.

You can't even imagine the things that go into that figure.

From my P&N post:
Case in point: Job classifications; they can assign a dollar amount into how much it costs to per part to do something if there are 6 as opposed to 36 classifications. You know how many people it takes to make that part and what your total labor costs will be divided by how many workers you employ. You can come up with an assignment to wages with something a nebulous as the number of classifications.

The head of the UAW said today that Labor accounts for 8-10% of a vehicles cost.

Text

Both sides have a vested interest to pull the numbers in their direction. Who do you believe?

EDIT:

If all three automakers did cease to exist as many as 6 million people might lose their jobs.

Even some of the foreign automakers might fold. Why? Because the suppliers would fold. Half of the content that foreign automakers use in their plants in the US comes from these suppliers. They wouldn't have parts to make their cars for a couple of years. The only vehicles sold in the US would be imported. What happens when you have a shortage of something???

 

spacelord

Platinum Member
Oct 11, 2002
2,127
0
76
Not only do Auto Union people make alot of money for many jobs that someone can learn in a day.. they also get premium health care for little or no cost to them. (maybe the last contract changed some of that, but not sure) I don't know about everyone else, but my health care costs that I have to contribute goes up every year. almost 30% more for 2009. They are locked in usually,so still paying nothing to little.. Thats a crock.. and hard on the company.

If GM goes down.. its going to have a domino affect.. Detroit area will be hit the hardest. Michigan would probably go bankrupt from all the Unemployment payments. (unless thats national?)
 

ponyo

Lifer
Feb 14, 2002
19,688
2,811
126
Why GM can't survive bankruptcy

Some companies use the courts to reorganize and come out stronger. That would be difficult for GM, experts say.

By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer
November 13, 2008: 5:38 AM ET


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- It worked for the airlines, but it might not work for General Motors. Saving the company through bankruptcy is probably not a viable option for the troubled automaker.

The reasons go deeper than the belief that consumers would shun a vehicle being sold by a bankrupt automaker. Some leading experts said that GM would find it exceedingly difficult to raise the billions in financing it would need to stay in business during a bankruptcy reorganization.

The bottom line: Unlike the experience of United, Delta and Northwest airlines, a GM (GM, Fortune 500) bankruptcy could spell a quick end to the company's operations.

The question of whether GM can survive is crucial to the growing debate in Washington over whether the government should put up $25 billion or more to bail out automakers.

GM on Friday, while saying it was working to avoid a catastrophic bankruptcy, disclosed that it has almost run out of cash and said it needs federal assistance before the end of the year. President Bush, who will be in office until Jan. 20, remains wary of a bailout.

Bailout advocates, including President-elect Barack Obama and the Democratic leaders of the House and Senate, argue that the collapse of a major automaker would be too great a shock for an already struggling U.S. economy to absorb. It is estimated that a GM bankruptcy alone would cascade widely throughout the economy and cost as many as 2.5 million jobs.

Some critics of a bailout have suggested that the automakers would be better off filing for bankruptcy to to get out of obligations and contracts they can't afford and become competitive again without putting taxpayer dollars at risk.
Cash troubles

There is precedent for bankruptcy turnarounds. But those companies, filing under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code, were able to secure what is known as debtor-in-possession, or DIP, financing.

Lenders make such loans in part because bankruptcy law allow them to go to the front of the line of the company's creditors if the company is not able to stay in business. In turn, the bankrupt company uses the cash to make changes and return to profitability.

Without DIP financing, liquidation -- usually under bankruptcy Chapter 7 -- may be the only option left.

Experts in the field and even GM itself say that DIP financing might not be available for GM.

"The state of the capital markets does make the prospects for DIP financing a much bigger question mark than would have been the case in other times," said Bob Schulz, Standard & Poor's senior auto credit analyst. "To reorganize does require financing."

Others question if GM would be shut out of DIP financing entirely. But even they say it would come at a steep price.

"I would say it is likely that they would find some financing," said bankruptcy attorney Ronald Silverman, a member of the American Bankruptcy Institute who recently spoke on the outlook for the auto sector. "It may not be inexpensive financing. But there are investors with cash interested in investment opportunities, and DIP loans are among the most attractive investment opportunities."

Still, the fear that car buyers won't want to buy cars from a bankrupt automaker may preclude GM from financing. For example, a recent survey of car buyers found that as many as 80% wouldn't even consider buying from a bankrupt automaker.

"You don't qualify for DIP if you don't have certainty about your revenue base," said Tony Cervone, a GM vice president.

Some question whether sales in fact would drop following a bankruptcy. University of Maryland economics professor Peter Morici believes automakers could assure buyers by offering warranties backed by third parties, the way bankrupt electronics retailer Circuit City is now doing.

But Mike Jackson, CEO of Autonation (AN, Fortune 500), the nation's largest chain of dealerships, said bankrupt automakers would have a hard time selling cars.

"I deal with consumers every day. They have their investor's hat on when they spend $30,000. They're making a calculation about resale value," Jackson said. "They have so many choices -- why take a gamble on a manufacturer who is in bankruptcy."
Change in the market

Most experts, even some of those who believe that GM would ultimately be able to find the financing it needs, agree that there is far less DIP financing available today because of the credit crisis.

"A year ago we had 30 DIP lenders; you could count on about 20 of them showing up in any big case. It was a buyer's market from a debtor's perspective," said Jack Williams, a bankruptcy law professor at Georgia State University and an ABI resident scholar. "Now we have three or four, maybe five, and they're all very careful."

Still, there are some who believe that GM should use bankruptcy to reorganize. And to them, a lack of financing to reorganize is just another argument against a federal bailout.

"If they can't get financing, then they should just sell the assets and go out of business," said Morici. "That means that bankruptcy reorganization is impractical; it means they can't be viable under any circumstance."
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,976
141
106

GM's 100,000 American jobs will die. Health care for a million Americans will be lost or at risk. Hundreds of GM's 1,300 suppliers will die. Their collapse could take down Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC, perhaps even North American transplants. Dealers in every county of America will close.
The government will face greater unemployment, more Americans without health insurance and greater pension liabilities.
Criticize Detroit 3 executives all you want. But the issue today is not whether GM should have closed Buick years ago, been tougher with the UAW or supported higher fuel economy standards.
In the next two to four months, GM will run out of cash and turn out the lights. Only government money can prevent that. Every other alternative is fantasy.
















Text
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
I think the worst thing would be not with GM and its employees, but all the other companies that depend on GM to buy their products, steel, aluminum, electronics, plastics, paint, etc.
 

mrSHEiK124

Lifer
Mar 6, 2004
11,488
2
0
Shit, this whole situation begs the question, if the writing has been on the wall for more than a decade, GM hasn't been able to get a clue or turn some $$$ but they kept payin' out to CEOs and UAW kept fucking them over, is it worth saving them?

I thought that was supposed to be the beauty of capitalism? The competition got tough, and the weakest got wiped out; IMO, having the gov't pour more cash into them is like keeping someone in a vegetative state on life support until they're 200, there's no point.

Originally posted by: IGBT
But the issue today is not whether GM should have closed Buick years ago, been tougher with the UAW or supported higher fuel economy standards.
In the next two to four months, GM will run out of cash and turn out the lights. Only government money can prevent that. Every other alternative is fantasy.

That is PRECISELY the issue. They dug their own grave, time to hop in and get comfortable. They made stupid decision after stupid mother fucking decision, and now they're out of cash, and it's time to turn out the lights.
 

iamwiz82

Lifer
Jan 10, 2001
30,772
13
81
Originally posted by: mrSHEiK124
Shit, this whole situation begs the question, if the writing has been on the wall for more than a decade, GM hasn't been able to get a clue or turn some $$$ but they kept payin' out to CEOs and UAW kept fucking them over, is it worth saving them?

I thought that was supposed to be the beauty of capitalism? The competition got tough, and the weakest got wiped out; IMO, having the gov't pour more cash into them is like keeping someone in a vegetative state on life support until they're 200, there's no point.

Originally posted by: IGBT
But the issue today is not whether GM should have closed Buick years ago, been tougher with the UAW or supported higher fuel economy standards.
In the next two to four months, GM will run out of cash and turn out the lights. Only government money can prevent that. Every other alternative is fantasy.

That is PRECISELY the issue. They dug their own grave, time to hop in and get comfortable. They made stupid decision after stupid mother fucking decision, and now they're out of cash, and it's time to turn out the lights.

GM isn't that weak though. They are held down by outside forces, forces which they really cannot help. No matter what people say about how management is the cause of their current struggles, it isn't really their fault. The UAW forced them into the situation.

You tell me, what do you do when your entire manufacturing division demands the world? Say 'no' and go under then and there, or agree and wait it out? The problem being, the UAW asked the world 40 years ago, and then kept demanding afterwords. You can't fight them though. It's one thing to have 1,000 people walk off, it's a whole different situation when you are talking 100,000 workers.

And we aren't just talking UAW workers, we are talking about their families too. And UAW workers for the other manufacturers and suppliers. Now we are talking about ostricizing a few million people.