PDA

View Full Version : Detroit Death Pool


Vegas
05-23-2007, 07:53 PM
http://www.forbes.com/2007/05/23/detroit-gm-ford-pf-ii-in_jb_0523soapbox_inl.html?partner=yahootix

Anyone who has spent any time in Detroit recently will tell you it is by all apparent indications a dying city. Crumbling buildings, widespread decay and a population in flight make for a depressing landscape. Detroit's fortunes have always been tied intimately to the fortunes of the U.S. auto industry. So it's hardly surprising that a look at Ford's and General Motors' balance sheets will show just as much decay and devastation as a trip through Detroit's worst slums. The only real question is, Which automaker will declare bankruptcy first?
Let's start with GM (nyse: GM - news - people ). Instead of talking about its autos, I'll just focus on the numbers. Over the past decade, GM's gross profits have declined from $40 billion to $22 billion, while its debt has increased from $199 billion to over $450 billion, all during a period of historically low interest rates.

The low rates won't last forever, though. Just over the past three years, GM's interest expenses have risen 77% from $9 billion to $16 billion and are projected to rise to $18 billion this year. Rates are still very low by historical standards.

One of the reasons the Federal Reserve cuts interest rates is to make it easier for companies to get the cash they need to finance growth. Unfortunately, free-flowing cash also makes it easy to dig yourself into a hole. GM supposedly took on all that debt to get its profits back on track, but as you can see, the opposite has occurred.

The simple truth is that GM can't make enough money selling cars to pay for its overhead, upkeep, salaries and dividend payments. Its solution has been to take on more and more debt, rather than spending its cash reserves, so that it can show a "profit" on quarterly income statements. In other words, GM is kiting checks all over town, using its MasterCard to pay off its Visa, burying itself ever deeper under a crushing mountain of debt.
At present margin levels and interest rates, it will take more than 20 years to pay down its debt load. Imagine what will happen when rates return to their long-term average level, as they inevitably will. With inflation looming, the Fed will have no choice but to raise interest rates at some point. It's only a matter of time.

Plus, GM's credit rating has been downgraded, meaning future rate hikes will hit it even harder. GM couldn't get its act together during an era of cheap, easy money. What reason is there to believe it will be able to do so when the ocean of capital dries up?

Ironically, GM's recent divestiture of GMAC relieved it of its only hedge against rising rates, while leaving it on the hook for any and all default risk. It's a no-win deal for GM, the sort only a desperate company would agree to. The fact that this deal went through at all is enough to show that GM is a company in crisis, but it's only one indicator among many.

GM can try closing plants, renegotiating its union contracts, laying off workers and asking for a government bailout of its staggering employee medical care expenses. In fact, I predict it will try all of the above. Doubtless it will be watching Chrysler's private-capital transformation like hawks. If Chrysler squeezes any concessions out of the unions, you can bet your bottom dollar GM will demand the same. But none of this will erase GM's massive and ever-growing debt burden.

GM has had its chance to save itself. It has taken liberal advantage of plentiful cheap, easy capital, and matters have only gotten worse.

The bottom line is, in order for GM to survive, it needs to make rapid, substantial gains in profitability. Of course, this was just as true three years ago as it is today, and the results speak for themselves. Whatever its massive PR machine may say, GM is already effectively bankrupt. All that remains is for the company to admit it.

A visit across town to Ford (nyse: F - news - people )will do little to improve the gloomy atmosphere. The situation is dire indeed for GM, but Ford is no better off. Ford's balance sheet is overflowing with red ink from unfunded pension and health care obligations. According to The Wall Street Journal, even assuming Ford somehow manages to negotiate with unions a 25% decrease in its health care costs, it will still face a $58 billion deficit, which adds up to well over three times its total market capitalization. The book value of Ford's non-car assets including cash and equity holdings comes in at about $52 billion.

Ford predicts it will burn through $17 billion of its cash over the next three years. Assuming Ford's predictions are correct, that leaves $35 billion in assets apart from the car business. Subtract $48 billion in liabilities, and you are left with a value of negative $23 billion for everything Ford owns except the car business. In other words, Ford's car business would have to be worth $23 billion simply for the stock to have zero value. In order to justify Ford's current market cap of $16 billion, its car business would have to be worth close to $40 billion.

Is Ford's automobile business worth that much? Not likely. For a number of years, Ford sold cars at a loss in order to subsidize its more profitable SUV and truck models. Now, just like in the '70s, the big gas guzzlers are falling out of favor with consumers, who are turning to more efficient Asian models, like those sold by Nissan (nasdaq: NSANY - news - people ). The results have not been pretty. SUV sales are down in excess of 30%. Ford can no longer rely on high-end models to prop up its profits. It will have to learn to make money selling cars again if it is to survive, and as of yet there are no promising new models with the potential to fulfill this need.

According to the same article in the Journal, Ford can only realistically hope for about a 2% pretax margin on its car sales. 2006 sales were $132 billion, but Goldman Sachs predicts Ford's sales will decline for 2.5% annually for at least the next three years. Frankly, I believe even this estimate is optimistic, but let's go with it. That leaves sales of $122 billion. A 2% margin on this gives $2.44 billion in pretax income.
If I value the business at 10 times its annual pretax income, that means Ford's car business is worth about $24.4 billion based on pretax earnings. Subtract the $23 billion deficit from the rest of Ford's balance sheet, and you're left with a valuation of $1.4 billion. Subtract taxes, and Ford is worth less than zero. It's difficult to imagine how Wall Street justifies a $16 billion market cap for this company.

Perhaps the most telling sign, however, is Wall Street's reaction to recent rumors that the Ford family was considering selling some or all of its stake in the company. The family now controls about 40% of the outstanding shares. When rumors of a possible sale began circulating, the shares went up 4.8%, the biggest jump in over six months. This despite repeated statements by the Ford family that the rumors were false. That kind of a reaction to a potential unloading of the Ford family's 40% voting power speaks volumes about the confidence level of the investing public in the the company's current owners and managers. The sum total amounts to roughly the same as Ford's true valuation: less than zero.

In sum, Ford and GM are both effectively bankrupt. Whether they end up declaring Chapter 11, or undergo a massive "restructuring" that amounts to the same thing, is hardly material. The only real question is Which will go first?

LSU
05-23-2007, 07:55 PM
So what you're telling me is those 100,000 mile warranties might be as good as dirt a few years down the road...

Vegas
05-23-2007, 07:58 PM
So what you're telling me is those 100,000 mile warranties might be as good as dirt a few years down the road...

I think there's a far better chance to get the warranty service than the taxpayers have of avoiding bailing out the pension plans.

LSU
05-23-2007, 07:59 PM
I think there's a far better chance to get the warranty service than the taxpayers have of avoiding bailing out the pension plans.



Corporations...


Always looking out for the good of the people.

Vegas
05-23-2007, 08:06 PM
Corporations...


Always looking out for the good of the people.

As my hero Milton Friedman said, corporations have a moral obligation to make a profit. In the case of the automakers, they tried to be all things to all people. They made promises of pensions and medical benefits to employees (both union and management) without paying attention to what that would cost, paid dividends to shareholders without investing money to pay for the pensions and medical benefits they promised, and spent too much energy asking for tariffs and import restrictions rather than compete in the free market. They didn't run their business with realistic longterm profit goals.

Hotpapa666
05-23-2007, 09:36 PM
So to Milton Friedman morals are tied to money. Not a very Christian idea. I thought morals were derived only from god....

Vegas
05-23-2007, 10:30 PM
So to Milton Friedman morals are tied to money. Not a very Christian idea. I thought morals were derived only from god....

Milton Friedman was Jewish. And making money can be done morally. Making money immorally isn't long term and results in making less money.

Hotpapa666
05-24-2007, 12:49 AM
Milton Friedman was Jewish. And making money can be done morally. Making money immorally isn't long term and results in making less money.

My point was that "the motto" doesn't seem to jiib with Christian views; who spoke the words doesn't matter. I guess this is going to come down to a definition of moral. Is selling cigerettes moral? Is directing the cigerette market to children moral? Is Prostitution moral (run in Nevada often as a corp.)? Is abortion (probably offered by medical corps.) moral? etc. All of these things are long term money makers for the corps. who are in the business and many people would challenge the activities' morality. Given these examples I fail to see any relationship between any corperate actions and any realistic measure of morality outside of the insular one in your quote.

Jiddy78
05-24-2007, 07:00 AM
As my hero Milton Friedman said, corporations have a moral obligation to make a profit. In the case of the automakers, they tried to be all things to all people. They made promises of pensions and medical benefits to employees (both union and management) without paying attention to what that would cost, paid dividends to shareholders without investing money to pay for the pensions and medical benefits they promised, and spent too much energy asking for tariffs and import restrictions rather than compete in the free market. They didn't run their business with realistic longterm profit goals.

Grab a bunch of assholes and put 'em in a group and give 'em a fancy name and they now get to operate under different rules.

As your soon-to-be hero Jiddy says, corporations are just a group of people....thus everytime you use that word, also realize that the word can be replaced with "group of people."


Let's try it.

As my hero Milton Friedman said, groups of people have a moral obligation to make a profit.



Doesn't sound so fancy when you get to the foundation, now does it Milto? But hey, if you can fool 'em and get yours....by all means, right?

Hotpapa666
05-24-2007, 09:34 AM
Grab a bunch of assholes and put 'em in a group and give 'em a fancy name and they now get to operate under different rules.

As your soon-to-be hero Jiddy says, corporations are just a group of people....thus everytime you use that word, also realize that the word can be replaced with "group of people."


Let's try it.

As my hero Milton Friedman said, groups of people have a moral obligation to make a profit.



Doesn't sound so fancy when you get to the foundation, now does it Milto? But hey, if you can fool 'em and get yours....by all means, right?


You let cat out of the bag. This is, essentially, the next step in my argument to prove the absurdity of Friedman's statement.

IBC
05-24-2007, 10:27 AM
Grab a bunch of assholes and put 'em in a group and give 'em a fancy name and they now get to operate under different rules.

As your soon-to-be hero Jiddy says, corporations are just a group of people....thus everytime you use that word, also realize that the word can be replaced with "group of people."


Let's try it.

As my hero Milton Friedman said, groups of people have a moral obligation to make a profit.



Doesn't sound so fancy when you get to the foundation, now does it Milto? But hey, if you can fool 'em and get yours....by all means, right?

We also treat these entities like humans, and give them the same if not more rights than a citizen would have, with none of the responsibility. If a citizen behaved like corporations do they would be thrown in jail in a second.

Jiddy78
05-24-2007, 11:21 AM
We also treat these entities like humans, and give them the same if not more rights than a citizen would have, with none of the responsibility. If a citizen behaved like corporations do they would be thrown in jail in a second.


Well, for the most part, but both can equally demolish honest taxpayers through bankruptcy...Most assholes use both corporate and personal bankruptcy now that they figured out they can....Bankrupt the entity and Bankrupt themselves all in one glorious fell swoop of sinful living...Start all over again in give or take 3 days...Hookers and booze all the way down, up, down, up...You get the picture...but since I feel graphic today, probably half these jokers have cumstains and tequila on their boxers when they enter the bankruptcy court for their "pardon"...

Vegas
05-24-2007, 11:34 AM
You let cat out of the bag. This is, essentially, the next step in my argument to prove the absurdity of Friedman's statement.

There's nothing absurd about it. Our whole economy and society depends on profit.

Jiddy78
05-24-2007, 11:51 AM
There's nothing absurd about it. Our whole economy and society depends on profit.


Really? Last I checked America was great before paper money, stocks and corporations. For almost a century....

I think our whole economy and society depends on our military. Period.

IBC
05-24-2007, 11:59 AM
probably half these jokers have cumstains and tequila on their boxers when they enter the bankruptcy court for their "pardon"...
Well put. I always enjoy a good hooker and booze rant culminating in semen and liquor stained boxers.

Vegas
05-24-2007, 12:03 PM
Really? Last I checked America was great before paper money, stocks and corporations. For almost a century....

I think our whole economy and society depends on our military. Period.

How would we pay for the military (or anything else) without profit? Taxes come from profit. When corporations don't make profit people lose their jobs, tax revenue shrinks, new homes go unsold, resulting in more people to lose jobs. Profit is fantastic and Mr. Friedman was right.

IBC
05-24-2007, 12:05 PM
How would we pay for the military (or anything else) without profit? Taxes come from profit. When corporations don't make profit people lose their jobs, tax revenue shrinks, new homes go unsold, resulting in more people to lose jobs. Profit is fantastic and Mr. Friedman was right.

Allow me to introduce exhibit d: 1980's film about corporate raiders Wall Street. I thought we proved there must be a balance with this shocking mid-80's film starring Michael Douglas and Charlie Sheen. I am disappointed you haven't studied your history.

Vegas
05-24-2007, 12:16 PM
Allow me to introduce exhibit d: 1980's film about corporate raiders Wall Street. I thought we proved there must be a balance with this shocking mid-80's film starring Michael Douglas and Charlie Sheen. I am disappointed you haven't studied your history.

I'm well aware of the history. It doesn't change the fact that we run on profit. There will always be bad people and bad businesses, but we need business to make a profit to fund everything.

IBC
05-24-2007, 12:17 PM
I'm well aware of the history. It doesn't change the fact that we run on profit. There will always be bad people and bad businesses, but we need business to make a profit to fund everything.

It was a joke. We disagree on this. Thats cool. I think wthout profit motive less would get done, but it is far from the only concern.

Jiddy78
05-24-2007, 12:19 PM
How would we pay for the military (or anything else) without profit? Taxes come from profit. When corporations don't make profit people lose their jobs, tax revenue shrinks, new homes go unsold, resulting in more people to lose jobs. Profit is fantastic and Mr. Friedman was right.

I actually agree with the concept...It is the implementation that has failed.

What is profit anymore?

Stock buybacks?

It's "value"....An opinion based on fraud in the current climate...and I see no changes on the horizon...

Vegas
05-24-2007, 12:21 PM
It was a joke. We disagree on this. Thats cool. I think wthout profit motive less would get done, but it is far from the only concern.

I should clarify that I don't by any means think it's the only concern and re-emphasize the longterm thing. Price gouging and unethical/illegal activity that produces short term profit isn't the proper motive.

IBC
05-24-2007, 12:25 PM
I should clarify that I don't by any means think it's the only concern and re-emphasize the longterm thing. Price gouging and unethical/illegal activity that produces short term profit isn't the proper motive.

Like the oil industry is gouging the hell out of us?

Vegas
05-24-2007, 01:16 PM
Like the oil industry is gouging the hell out of us?

I don't believe that they are. They make around 8 cents a gallon. The government makes over 50 cents a gallon. Who's gouging?

Jiddy78
05-24-2007, 02:25 PM
I don't believe that they are. They make around 8 cents a gallon. The government makes over 50 cents a gallon. Who's gouging?

All the public sector folks sucking off the government tit to ensure themselves GUARANTEED pensions and GUARANTEED retirement...