no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

A “Loan” is Still A Bailout

November 12th, 2008

There has been a lot (especially locally) of media coverage surrounding the fate of the Big 3, and General Motors in particular, which are on the verge of bankruptcy.

A lot of people are saying things like, “It’s not really a bailout. It’s a loan.” Nice try. It’s still a bad idea.

If they are getting money that nobody would freely lend, then it’s a bailout. If they are getting subsidized interest rates, then it’s a bailout. The end result is that by shielding these organizations from failure, the government will be incentivizing the very behavior that resulted in this dismal state of affairs. By giving these manufacturers a bailout, the government allows them to maintain prices otherwise unsustainable. By not holding them accountable to the market, they will be allowed to continue making overpriced cars that nobody wants to buy.

I did the math. In order to remain solvent, General Motors would need to triple its 3Q sales volume over the next two quarters, just to meet its obligations and keep enough cash on hand to pay the bills that come due.

By January, GM may not be able to “pay its suppliers, meet its loan covenants or cover health care obligations in its labor contracts.” Therefore, our “representatives” in Congress are hammering out a deal that would give our money to these very same companies. According to Nancy Pelosi,

Emergency assistance to the automobile industry would be conditioned on executive compensation restrictions, a prohibition on golden parachutes, rigorous independent oversight and other taxpayer protections to ensure that any companies that benefit from this assistance and not the taxpayers bear the full burden of repaying any costs that are incurred.

You see, the companies are going to bear the burden, not the taxpayers.

The entire point of a bailout is to reduce and/or eliminate a corporation’s financial duress! And this can only be done by making someone else accountable for its shortcomings. Where is the money coming from?

It’s either coming from taxes (i.e., from taxpayers) or its coming hot off the printing press and being loaned to these megalithic corporations, who will be able to spend the money into existence before prices have risen to accommodate the additional supply. In either case, individuals will bear this burden, not the corporations.

And what if the bailout doesn’t work? What if we’re forced to pump $50B or $100B or more into the industry (immediately and perceptibly reducing our current standards of living) and the companies still fail?

Who is going to bear that burden?

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.

A Bailout for Detroit?

October 20th, 2008

Last month, Detroit’s automakers pleaded for handouts from Papa Government. Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler essentially engaged themselves in plain collusion, begging for their own version of a bailout. Really – how is this anything other than plain collusion? It is rent-seeking at its finest.

If the collective wisdom of millions of investors and investment funds has written off the General, and the about-to-be-thrice-bankrupt Chrysler, what moron would consider those companies a good investment idea?

Well, in addition to the morons at General Motors (GM wants to buy Chrysler), you might not be surprised to learn that the financial geniuses in Government, who preside over a $10 Trillion Deficit, want to invest more of your earnings in companies that are failing. House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) views loan guarantees to Detroit automakers as a good thing, specifically she says, “We consider this a major investment in innovation.”

Recall: all investments are subject to market risk. past performance is no guarantor of future results and other fine-printed gobbledygook that appears on every investment portfolio’s prospectus. Every single person who invested in General Motors, or AIG, or Lehman, or any other businesses took a risk. They took a risk that they might lose everything, in hopes of earning some profit. And now, it’s time to pay the piper his due.

Some people argue that, if we’re going to bail out Wall Street banks because they’re Too Big To Fail then we should also bail out General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, etc. Nobody seriously entertains the idea that the government shouldn’t be bailing out any businesses. Ever.

This is not an investment, it’s corporate welfare. It was corporate welfare to bailout Wall Street, and it’s corporate welfare to bailout Detroit.

+++

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics