no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

Will General Motors Go Bankrupt?

November 7th, 2008

At this point, there is probably nothing that can be done to salvage General Motors as we know it.

Two months ago, GM’s market cap was something like $6.5 Billion. Today it is less than $3B. General Motors is now spending, on a monthly basis, about as much money as GM’s total market valuation. General Motors now burning through $2.3 Billion, every month.

Let’s put it in perspective: General Motors has about 8 months of cash reserves left. In order to ultimately stave off bankruptcy.

GM would need to sell something like 5 million new cars over that period of time, in order to generate that sort of positive cash flow (assuming an average car payment of $400/month). That would potentially buy them three to four years, before those notes expired and the company would find itself in a very similar position, again.

No, really, let’s put it in perspective. General Motors sold just over 2.1 million vehicles in 3Q2008. They would need to literally double their sales over the next eight months to stay solvent, which would probably require that they double their capacity. This is inconceivable.

Although the merger talks with Chrysler are temporarily on hold, but GM (actually all of the Big 3) is still pandering for a bailout in the neighborhood of $25-50 Billion. A bailout is the only thing that could possibly keep General Motors in business, and for that reason alone, it is objectionable. In the event of a bailout, a handful of insiders are going to make a bunch of money that was taken from the rest of us, and the company is going to go under, anyways.

There is simply no good reason to force the rest of us to finance GM’s life-support, only delaying what is in all likelihood a foregone conclusion. General Motors will die, whether we keep it alive for a few more months (or years) is beside the point. There’s no justification for society’s productive members to be forced to pay higher taxes, and enjoy all the benefits of a reduced standard of living, just so a company that has failed so objectively and so perfectly can continue to make cars that nobody wants to buy.

Comments on Comments #28: Bailing out the Auto Industry is a Bad Idea

November 7th, 2008

A few loose ends to tie up before I forget about them, I’ll respond to the more recent comments in a forthcoming edition.

+++

Gilligan left a comment in #27, most likely in response to continued discussion about Who Owns General Motors?

I liked this statement:

“Employees could purchase the company outright in a month, if they were so inclined.”

Brings up an interesting point. If employees had total ownership of the company, they could fire the management for their decisions to produce products nobody wants. … All the benefits of ownership and vested self-interest would apply.

I worked for one of the big 3 in the late 80’s. I could write a massive post about all of the waste that ranges from comical to tragic, but to nutshell it:

Please do so, I’d love to read it. I’ve heard horror stories from some consultants/six-sigma types that used to work with the automotive manufacturers and their suppliers. Like, “Corporate Jets for everyone!” horror stories.

Management (i.e. engineering) waited for summer students to arrive to throw overdue projects over the fence at them to complete. In the meantime, they used the companies facilities to run their home businesses.

The guys who were making out like bandits were the trades folk. The employee incentive program said that an employee that came up with and implemented X would be paid 10% of what it saved the company in the first year, up to a maximum of 20K. You should have seen the size of their paychecks. Deep into the 6 figures…whew. Senior management used to get outraged and would chew into the salaried engineers, “Why don’t you guys invent this stuff?” Of course, the incentive program did not apply to the engineers…’nuff said.

Where I work, most non-managerial employees are eligible for overtime pay. Once you become a supervisor, however, the OT pay stops, which could potentially result in lower income after your promotion. If you think about it, you only need to work about 3 hours of OT per week to make 10% more than your base salary. If you average 5-8 hours of overtime per week, you’re making a lot of extra money. If you get a 15% raise and promoted to a managerial position, you’ll probably take home less money and you’ll have to work more. Needless to say, the employee churn at the 2-3 year mark (when most people become eligible for this sort of promotion) is pretty staggering.

Papa G, who also worked in automotive, left a comment on A Bailout for Detroit

I hold the Big 3 management teams as the problems for the rust belt states and in particular, here in Michigan. Now they want a bailout…they made the mistakes and they want our money. So does Wall Street . If the Wall Street bailouts work out OK, will the government put some of the profits in the hands of the citizens of the United States….probably not ! If the bailouts of the Big 3 proves to be successful..will the government put the profits in our accounts. Again…probably not !!

As the lean fad took over in the 1980s and 1990s, GM under the leadership of F. A. Smith (and the others) began reducing the number of suppliers that they used to source parts. Some were forced out by GM’s pricing power, others were bought out or consolidated. When the dust settled, where there had been many small, independent machine shops and suppliers, now there are only a few. Some of them (like Delphi) are also bankrupt.

Before, if one supplier went on strike, or couldn’t fulfill the order, there were a dozen others who would fill it. Now, if General Motors’ single supplier of widgets goes on strike, the entire company is dead in the water, wasting through millions of dollars a day. This sort of top-down management has been disastrous for General Motors, as strikes become increasingly crippling.

Bailing out Chrylser twice in the past few decades was a bad idea. Bailing out General Motors so it can buy Chrysler which needs its own bailout is an EPIC FAIL.

There are parts of both companies that are valuable and salvageable, although probably not at any price approaching book-value. The rest of the organizations are junk. You’d practically have to pay people to take them off your hands. The junk needs to be written off, not subsidized, because it’s only dragging down the few strong points these organizations have left.

+++

Despite the fact that I thought it was probably going to be a boring post (too academic, perhaps), a number of people left comments on Entrepreneurs, the Firm, and the Knowledge Problem saying that they really liked the post and found it interesting. I’m glad to hear that, maybe I’ll do more of that sort of writing in the future.

The War on Drugs Enables Terrorism

November 5th, 2008

My friend Zach left a great comment on Michigan Proposal 1:

What is morally wrong about marijuana? I can list a couple of far stretched morality issues , i.e. Some terrorists organizations receive money through the drug trade, etc.

I thought he was lost, but he redeemed himself with the following:

But other than these, which can be easily avoided by making it legal and/or legal to grow your own just like you do potatoes, corn, wheat, etc…

I remember when he was finishing up his undergrad degree and I proofed a term paper he wrote, absolutely slamming Sarbanes-Oxley and other similar legislation. I’m impressed that people I know are starting to grasp the idea that government interference, prohibition, regulations, etc., are the primary cause of most of what people perceive to be problems in society.

At the same time, and I mean this is the most constructive manner possible, he didn’t quite reach the “A+” conclusion. Although he’s 100% correct that ending prohibition would eliminate the lucrative profits to be had in the drug trade, thereby also eliminating gang warfare, eliminating an (allegedly) important funding source for terrorists, etc., he failed to make a very important distinction.

Allow me to present an analogy: the Mafia in Detroit used to use car washes as a front to launder money; that doesn’t make going to a car wash immoral or wrong, does it?

So with that in mind, simply because terrorists profit from the restricted supply (and quasi-monopolistic profit accruing thereto) of certain controlled substances, we cannot reasonably conclude that the cultivation, trafficking, consumption and/or trading of these substances is malum in se.

And this is the ultimate distinction: the problem isn’t the drug, the problem is terrorism. Terrorism is always wrong.

And one more thing: the terrorists are winning the war on drugs.

+++

Just so nobody says “David Z made a huge error, he neglected to say that the war on drugs is domestic terrorism,” I’ll say it: the war on drugs is domestic terrorism.

But that’s a topic for another day.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics