• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Let them fail!

Our tax dollars at work. At this rate the final tab for GM will far exceed the simple costs of letting them go bankrupt in the first place (and GM may well go belly up anyway despite the tens of billions lavished upon it):

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/10/how-the-gm-bailout-turned-into-foreign-aid/

The GM Bailout Turned Into Foreign Aid
By Tyler Vandermeulen on October 13, 2012

Longtime reader and new contributor Tyler Vandermeulen is a financial analyst by day. He took a deep dive into the EDGAR database to unearth how much of GM’s money flows abroad. Please welcome Tyler with the respect he deserves. Rude comments will not be tolerated.

Before the bailout of General Motors, it was well understood that the world’s largest automaker was losing huge amounts of money in the US and was staying afloat thanks to stronger performance in overseas markets. Since the bailout, however, that dynamic has been turned on its head. Thanks to a leaner manufacturing footprint, debt eliminations and steadily recovering sales, GM’s US operations have generated the lion’s share of the company’s profit since the bailout. And now, as the rest of the world economy slows, GM is spending more and more of its taxpayer-enhanced cash pile to shore up its faltering foreign divisions. In fact, according to an analysis of GM’s SEC filings, the company is likely to incur over $6.5 billion in losses and expenditures overseas in the 2011-2014 period, not counting over $1.6b in foreign potential legal liabilities or several other incalculable expenses that could add up to billions more. Not only are these expenses a challenge to GM’s overall financial health at a time when it also faces billion-dollar expenditures on pensions in the US, it shows the basic problem with national bailouts of global companies. Taxpayers who were told they were saving an American company are now seeing their tax dollars flowing overseas by the billions.

A full calculation of GM’s overseas expenditures since the bailout would be a daunting task indeed. Simply by scouring GM’s latest SEC filings, one finds no shortage of losses and one-time expenditures abroad. In fact, nearly every division of GM’s global empire has required some kind of assistance over the last year or so. These expenditures come in many forms, from tax assessments to investments, from bailouts to severance deals, and due to the complex nature of GM’s global finances they cannot be fully accounted with precision. But they all emphasize the reality that, after years of living off foreign operations, GM’s bailed-out North American division is now bailing out the rest of the world.

Europe: Black Hole Opel, Unions, PSA

GM’s European losses currently get the most attention from analysts, and are nothing new for The General, which has reportedly lost over $14b in Europe over the last decade. Those losses and expenditures continue to add up. In the two full years since GM decided to cancel a planned sale of its European division Opel, GM Europe’s losses have added up to $2.74 billion, with another $617m lost in the first half of 2012 (EBIT). Additional goodwill adjustments of $590m in the first half of 2012 and $621m in 2011 further added to the losses. Additionally, GM has spent some $313m on voluntary severance for European workers, and expects to spend another $100m on the same program through the end of next year. Finally, GM has an undisclosed agreement with European labor unions to spend as much as $265m per year between 2011 and 2014. The company has pledged some $406m in inventory as collateral for that agreement. Not counting the spending agreement with European unions, this puts GM’s losses and outlays on Opel and GME in the last two and a half years at more than $4.25 billion.

GM’s losses in Europe aren’t likely to end there. This year, GM spent $400 million on a 7% stake in Peugeot-Citroen PSA, an investment that GM admits has already lost value. GM says it plans to hold onto that stake for the long term, and has chosen not to write down that loss… yet. Just today, rumors surfaced that GM could spend even more money on its Peugeot tie-up, possibly providing capital for an Opel-PSA joint venture. Meanwhile, the worst-case scenario for Opel involves an estimated $13b outlay to shut down plants and prepare Opel for a sale, according to Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas. In this scenario, GM could spend as much as half of its cash pile extricating itself from its money-losing European operations.

GM losses and outlays in Europe, 2010-June 2012: $4.5b+

Asia: Korea Debt, Murky Hong Kong Dealings

GM’s Asian operations are consolidated as GM International Operations (GMIO), a division that includes Korea, China, Australia, India and other Asian markets. Prior to the bailout, GM’s Chinese operations were widely considered to be a major profit center for the company, while Korea has become increasingly important as a development center and India has potential for future growth. However, GMIO’s profitability has been weak in comparison to the revitalized North American division, generating just $400m in consolidated adjusted EBIT in the first half of 2012. And since 2011, GM has had several expenses associated with its Asian operations.

In 2011, GM spent $100m for 7% of its GM Korea subsidiary, increasing its holding to 77%. This year, GM has recorded a $27m Goodwill impairment related to its Korean operations, and has paid $22m to Korean workers as part of its severance program there. GM Korea also carries significant amounts of short-term and long-term debt to Korean creditors that GM will have to pay down.

More puzzling is GM’s strange Indian joint venture with its Chinese partner SAIC. In late 2009, GM rolled its Indian operations into a 50-50 joint venture with SAIC, known as the Hong Kong Joint Venture, or HKJV. By the first quarter of 2011, that venture had lost enough value for GM to record an impairment of $39m and “other charges totaling $67m.” From there things get strange. According to GM’s 10-Q:

“We were informed of SAIC-HK’s intent to exercise its right to not participate in future capital injections in HKJV. If this occurs we plan to settle the promissory note in the three months ending September 30, 2012 and provide an additional equity investment of $125 million into HKJV. As a result SAIC-HK’s interest in HKJV would be diluted from 50% to 9%. We also anticipate that the shareholders agreement would be amended such that we obtain control of and consolidate HKJV.”

It would seem that GM is buying its partner out of the Indian arrangement at a cost of $125m, however, GM has had several convoluted transactions with SAIC in the past, most notably in the sale of its “Golden Share” in the Shanghai-GM joint venture, which was offset by a Chinese bank loan and was eventually rolled back. It’s too early to say for sure whether GM will purchase the controlling stake in HKJV, and thereby regain full control of its India business. It is unlikely that SAIC will relinquish its grip on India, just because it suddenly can’t service the capital requirements of the HKJV. Possibly, more information will become available when GM files its Q3 paperwork, or possibly later. With some 30% of GM’s global sales in China, GM shareholders  deserve more visibility into this byzantine part of GM’s world.

GM Outlays on GMIO, 2011-2012: ~$380m

South America: Tax Assessments

GM’s South American unit dipped into the red in the second quarter of this year, and its $64m net EBIT through the first half of 2012 is just $7m better than its Q1 2011 performance alone. But even if GMSA’s performance improves this year, it has paid out around $100m this year between the purchase of GMAC’s Venezuelan financing operation and a worker severance program in Brazil. $700m was also spent in 2011 to retire debt facilities at GMSA. Furthermore, GM has run into several tax assessments in South America, including a $292m assessment for the years 2002-2004 by the Mexican government and a $180m assessment for 2007 by the Brazilian government. GM says it has “adequate reserves” to meet these obligations, but notes:

“Certain South American income and indirect tax-related administrative proceedings may require that we deposit funds in escrow or make payments which may range up to $0.9 billion.”

GM Outlays in South America, 2011-2012: ~$1.7b

Legal Liabilities

Due to the unpredictable nature of legal disputes, the amount of overseas legal liability carried by GM may not result in actual expenditures. That said, the following legal liabilities are noted in GM’s SEC filings:

Settlement of class action suits regarding Canadian pricing policy: $21m

GM Canada “Lock up agreement” lawsuit: potential liability $918m

Korean labor law suit: $152m in accrual, $556m in further potential liability.

Potential overseas legal liability: ~$1.65b

Without including potential liability costs or the more inevitable costs associated with Opel’s restructuring, GM has spent or lost in excess of $6.5b overseas in the last 30 months or so. With more losses and expenses coming, taxpayers can expect to see their investment in GM’s North American operations continue to support a steady flow of cash to GM’s overseas operations. Perhaps taxpayers should have been told that they weren’t simply bailing out an American automaker, but a variety of overseas operations as well.
 
Hey....a sale is a sale...gotta get those numbers up

GM offering discounted cars through Costco
October 04, 2012 FoxNews.com
Article Link

General Motors has teamed up with Costco to offer members of the warehouse club preferred pricing on a selection of GM products through January 2nd.

Eligible vehicles include the Buick Enclave, LaCrosse and Verano; GMC’s Acadia, terrain and Sierra; and the Chevrolet Cruze, Camaro, Malibu, Equinox and the Silverado pickup, so you’ll have plenty of room to carry home all of those bulk purchases of toilet paper and pretzels barrels.

After signing up online, customers are referred to local GM dealers to complete their purchase.

Along with the low, low price on the vehicles, customers will also get a $500 Costo Cash Card, but there’s a catch: the offer is only good for customers who were members before Oct 1st, so no late comers allowed.

This is the second time GM and has run this type of promotion. In 2011 the automaker used it to sell more than 5,000 vehicles, according to The Automotive News. The preferred prices are similar to what GM employees pay.

Costco previously worked with Volvo and Subaru on similar programs
end
 
It will be just as bad for us when the GoC and the Ontario government divest themselves of GM. Frankly, it might be better to simply write the entire deal off as a loss and ensure they never can crawl back for more tax dollars:

http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/19/enjoy-the-red-ink-from-gms-share-buyback

Have Your Cereal with Red Ink, Courtesy GM's Share Buyback, Taxpayers

Shikha Dalmia|Dec. 19, 2012 9:27 am

This just off the presses: Government Motors is buying 200 million of the 500 million shares currently held by the Treasury as a first step to complete freedom from the government. Reports The Wall Street Journal:

    The auto maker will pay $5.5 billion for the shares in a deal that is expected to close by the end of the year. The repurchase price of $27.50 a share represents a 7.9% premium over the closing price on Dec. 18.

    "We felt this transaction is attractive to the company, good for business and good for selling more cars," GM Chief Financial Officer Dan Amman said Wednesday. "It moves us forward and eliminates a significant overhang on the stock that has weighed down the shares."

That’s great for the company. But before the administration starts spinning tales about how its wise bailout set the stage for GM’s stunning comeback, taxpayers should bear the following facts in mind:

In order for them to recover their entire $30 billion still in the company, GM’s share price should be exactly double of what it is paying Treasury today. This means that if taxpayers sell the remaining 300 million (19 percent of the outstanding shares) at $27.50, they will be in the red by about $15 billion – give or take a few. And this of course does not count the $15 billion or so in illicit tax write offs that the administration handed GM during bankruptcy.

Also, although the $27.50 share price represents a nearly 8 percent markup over the closing price yesterday, it is $5.50 below GM’s IPO price – and at least $13 to $17.50 below what many analysts two years ago had hoped it would stabilize at.

So, if anything, GM’s performance thus far has been disappointing, something that you won’t hear at Jay Carney’s press briefing today. And the fact that the company waited till the month after the elections to make its move tells you all you need to know about which end of the stick taxpayers are holding in this deal.

and bonus: the Canadian figures are in as well.

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/12/19/canada-could-keep-gm-stake-until-after-next-election-experts-say/

Canada could keep GM stake until after next election, experts say

John Tilak and Susan taylor, Reuters | Dec 19, 2012 4:30 PM ET | Last Updated: Dec 19, 2012 4:42 PM ET
More from Reuters

BURLINGTON, Ontario — Political considerations are likely to keep Canada from following Washington’s lead and selling its stake in General Motors Co , industry experts say, potentially until after the next general election, scheduled for 2015.

While Finance Minister Jim Flaherty on Wednesday repeated that Canada has no interest in being a long-term shareholder, experts say that the government’s decision on when to sell will primarily hinge on political, rather than economic, factors.

For the Canadian government, it’s going to be a political timing decision, it’s not going to be based on financial considerations
The U.S. Treasury said on Wednesday that it plans to sell its entire stake in GM over 15 months, all but assuring a multibillion dollar loss.

The Treasury became a GM shareholder in 2009, when it contributed about US$50-billion to a bailout to keep the company afloat. It will initially sell 200 million shares back to GM for US$5.5-billion and sell its remaining stake, of about 300.1 million shares, through “various means.”

Related
GM to buy back $5.5-billion stake from U.S. Treasury, which plans full exit
GM won’t build new Chevrolet Camaro in Oshawa
GM Canada to invest $850-million in R&D at Oshawa facility
The poor performance of automotive stocks suggests that Canada would also face a sizeable loss if it sold GM shares over the next two years, said Tony Faria, auto industry expert and professor at University of Windsor in Ontario.

“For the Canadian government, it’s going to be a political timing decision, it’s not going to be based on financial considerations,” he said. “Because whenever they sell, they are going to end up having lost some money.”

Canada’s federal government and the province of Ontario gave a combined C$10.8 billion to GM’s restructuring. The governments’ combined 9 percent stake, made up of around 140 million common shares and 16.1 million preferred shares, was worth C$3.5 billion at the end of September.

Faria said that with last month’s U.S. election behind him, President Barack Obama does not have to worry about how the unfavorable news of selling GM shares at a loss will affect his popularity.

It does, to some extent, become as much a political decision as an economic decision when they think it’s time to sell
In contrast, Canada looks unlikely to go to the polls until October 2015 and has little incentive to sell before then.

“From a fiscal standpoint, there really is no particular rush. It does, to some extent, become as much a political decision as an economic decision when they think it’s time to sell,” said Doug Porter, deputy chief economist at BMO Capital Markets.

Flaherty, who said he spoke Wednesday morning with GM Chairman Dan Akerson to discuss the Treasury sale, said that Canada has no immediate plans to sell its shares.

“We’ve always been clear about two things. One, that we will not have a fire sale – we will not sell the shares without getting the best value we can for Canadian taxpayers – and secondly, that we are a Conservative government. We are not interested in the long term in being shareholders in private corporations,” Flaherty told reporters in Burlington, Ontario.

“Over time we do intend to divest. On the timing, I’ll have to get back to you.”

DEBATE AND CONTROVERSY

Flaherty also addressed a debate over Canada’s public pension plan, the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), saying that at some point it may be appropriate to increase CPP contributions, but that now was not the time because the economy was not strong enough.

He declined to comment on the controversy surrounding Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney’s interaction with members of the opposition Liberal Party.

Carney, who will become governor of the Bank of England in July, has been under fire after details emerged about Liberal efforts earlier this year to woo him to run for the leadership of the party, which was once dominant but is now Canada’s third-place party

“I’ve spoken with the governor, I really don’t have any comment on the issue right now. I imagine he, at some point, might be willing to respond,” Flaherty said.

Bank of Canada spokesman Jeremy Harrison said no statement from Carney was imminent: “The bank currently has no media activities planned for the governor over the next few weeks of the Christmas holidays. The governor has a regularly scheduled press conference on 23 January, in support of the MPR (Monetary Policy Report).”

© Thomson Reuters 2012
 
An interesting article about how cars are being made now by major manufacturers. Rather telling is how GM missed the boat (again), your tax dollars were certainly not spent on making a lean and efficient "new" GM, just paying off the crony's:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/06/mqb-fud-burdened-by-legacy-platforms-gm-fights-off-the-kits-and-what-are-those-kits-anyway/

MQB FUD: Burdened By Legacy Platforms, GM Fights Off The Kits – And what are those kits anyway?
By Bertel Schmitt on June 15, 2013

    (Note: This story is not for the TL;NR crowd. If you need it in one short sentence: If your car company isn’t working on a kit architecture, kiss them good-bye.)

Call it coincidence, but immediately after TTAC flogged GM for having missed the kit architecture train, and for being chained to the antique platform model well into the next decade and possibly beyond, GM launched operation pushback. It could not be tolerated that the supposedly “New GM” was painted as a company with out-of-touch technology, so Selim Bingol rallied his troops.

The first skirmishes were fought by GM partisans dropped behind the lines of the story. Their comments seemingly were taken from a common sheet of talking points:

(This story intentionally appears on a weekend. This type of partisan usually works 9-5.)

    Standardization bad, because when you screw up, you screw up big.
    Ain’t this simply Badge Engineering again?
    What’s that “kit” stuff anyway, isn’t it just a short word for “platform?”
    If it comes from biassed TTAC, it can’t be believed anyway, so move on, nothing to see. Must be a slow newsday.

Later in the newsday, bigger guns were rolled out. Bloomberg checked its notes taken during a March video interview with GM’s product development chief Mary Barra, and ran a lengthy story , heavy on women’s issues and glass ceilings, but also on platforms other than platform heels:

    “That means building cars using “platforms”—industry-speak for the basic structure and parts that can be tweaked and repurposed for multiple vehicles. The idea is to use as few platforms as possible, which speeds up development and lowers costs. VW is pushing to reduce its 15 platforms to five by 2019, with more than 55 percent of its vehicles based on just one of those platforms. VW says this will cut its costs by 20 percent.

    In 2010, GM had 30 platforms. Barra says the company is on track to reduce that to fewer than 10 by 2020, which should help reduce development costs by $1 billion a year.”

Platforms? Uh-uh. Talking points at work. Message: GM and VW both reduce their platforms, so what’s the point? The story ignores, intentionally or recklessly, that modular architectures are no platforms.

10 platforms by 2020? Uh-uh. GM’s slides, shown during the Global Business Conference Call on June 12, show a target of 17 platforms by 2018, and I doubt that number will suddenly shrink to 10 platforms only two years later. Trust me, if 10 platforms by 2020 would indeed be the target, it would have been on the slides in big bold letters.

As far as Volkswagen’s allegedly 15 existing platforms are concerned (that count appears to come from Wikipedia), they won’t be replaced by five new platforms. As far as Volkswagen is concerned, platforms are dead. Future Volkswagen Group cars will be built based on four, not five, kits, not platforms. Said Volkswagen last year:

    “Within the Group, the MQB developed under the auspices of the Volkswagen brand is supplemented by the Modular Longitudinal System (MLB) from Audi, the Modular Standard System (MSB) with Porsche as the competence center and finally the ‘New Small Family’ – the most compact vehicle model series with the Volkswagen up!, SEAT Mii and ŠKODA Citigo.”

These four kits cover everything from a tiny up! to a big Bentley. There even are whispers of a huge universal kit that builds on the four available now. Porsche cleverly claimed the logical name “Modularer Standardbaukasten” (Modular Standard Kit) as theirs, even if it is used to build the definitely non-standard exotic parts of Volkswagen’s empire, Porsches, Bentleys, possibly Bugattis and Lamborghinis, and the more esoteric nameplates of Volkswagen and Audi.

On the same June 13th our platform story ran, Bloomberg activated its Tokyo crew to check on Toyota. Toyota currently is a bit buttoned-up when it comes to its modular architecture, but it definitely is in the works. If you ask them, you receive, polite as they are, a “we are still working on it.” With nothing new from Toyota, Bloomberg’s reporters Ma Jie and Masatsugu Horie recalled that they were invited to an eyes-only, no cameras, on-background session in March with Toyota’s Mitsuhisa Kato. Kato is Toyota’s Hackenberg. He is the Chief of all Chief Engineers, he heads Toyota’s R&D Group, and is known to share Hackenberg’s love for modules.

During the March session, when journalists were sufficiently dozing after hearing about organizational changes, 9 meter wide wind tunnels, and the need to produce to local tastes, Toyota had talked about new “car manufacturing technologies.” Tentatively named “Toyota New Global Architecture,” TNGA for short, Toyota did set their system in the same context as Volkswagen’s MQB/MLB, Nissan’s upcoming CMF Common Module Family, and Mazda’s SKYACTIV architecture.

Reminded of what they heard in March, Bloomberg now condensed the off the record session to the message that Toyota is reducing the number of parts. Lede of the story: “Toyota Motor Corp. has decided it no longer needs 50 kinds of airbags to protect drivers’ knees. Ten, the company says, ought to suffice.”

Both Bloomberg stories ran a day later in Automotive News, sadly unchanged. AN could have added a bit more professionalism.

First MQB car: Audi A3

Folks at Toyota feel misunderstood, but they are currently unwilling to lift the kimono. Privately, they say that a reduction of the total parts count is one of the many consequences of a modular approach, but this definitely is not the approach in itself.

On the same 13th, publicity-wise a dark Thursday for modular systems, even Reuters joined the fray  and warned:

    “VW’s modular platforms, allowing for a greater proportion of parts to be shared among different brands and models, help as the company sets out to become the world’s top automaker by 2018.

    Yet, they also make VW more vulnerable if one part turns out to be flawed.”


MQB explained

So what are those kits and modular concepts anyway?

And why are they definitely not a platform with a new fancy name?

Simply put, you build on a platform, but you build with a kit.

Any questions? Alright, in that case:

A common platform usually means what the name says: Common underbody, suspensions, steering, and engine placement. On that, a multitude of different cars can be built, or a multitude of similar cars – a platform does not protect from a lack of creativity.

A kit architecture on the other hand breaks the car down further into functional building blocks. There is no more common underbody. Different building blocks can be mated together, in theory allowing the creation of a nearly unlimited number of different cars. Nissan’s CMF  does this quite literally. They divide the car into four sections – engine compartment, cockpit, front underbody and rear underbody and a common architecture for electronic components.  Then, they make different modules to account for weight etc. Others probably will have more, and more esoteric modules.

But won’t that stifle creativity and lead to even more appliances? Just like the kit architectures, the English alphabet uses just a small box of modules, called the 26 characters. With them, and a few punctuation marks, anything can be written, from the bible to porn, from a summons to a love letter, from Jalopnik to TTAC.

The most important part of these kits are their interfaces. What sets Lego blocks apart from the wooden blocks of centuries past is a common interconnection standard that allows them to snap together without tools, or effort.

From what I have seen so far of the kit architectures of Volkswagen, Nissan, and Toyota, the common interconnection standard is the key concept of all three. For a fourteen year old kid who grew up with object oriented languages and who thinks in methods and properties, these kit architectures and their difference from platforms of old will come naturally. Old dinosaurs will believe they are “just another computer language,” a mistake Bernstein Research made when they called MQB just another PQ35.

Don’t expect revolutionary, super elegant solutions. Modular systems evolve, sacrificing “pure” solutions on the altar of efficiency, just like C++  or VB.NET evolved from the dark ages of Gosub lore, and just like Smalltalk remained just talk – to stay within the allegory of algorithms.

Object oriented programming has changed the landscape of computer programming, and has led to rapid development of gadgets that pervade our lives. Similarly, the object oriented kit architectures already change how cars are designed, and made. A modern assembly line long has been able to produce many different cars on the same line, necessary for the build-to-order mass customization popular in Japan and Europe. The batch-oriented way in which cars are made and sold in America has not forced this object-oriented thinking.

“Claims that VW can save up to 20% of the cost of producing a car are simply nonsensical,” says the Bernstein report. Funnily enough, the people I talked to at Nissan and Toyota use a similar, even higher number. Both talked of savings potentials “between 20 and 30 percent.” The savings will not just be “a bit on R&D,” and “a bit on supplier relationship management,” and a few other bits as Bernstein thinks.

Modular architectures will bring huge savings in terms of time to market, engineering, testing, regulatory compliance, manufacturing, and even marketing. To go from PQ35 to MQB involves a major change for a Volkswagen plant, it basically has to be rebuilt. Subsequent interruptions during model changes however will be hardly noticeable. Modular approaches allow addressing small niches in a profitable way – you never know whether a fringe craze will turn into a seminal trend.

As a result of the criticism, automakers with modular architectures in the field or in development have become a bit gun shy when it comes to savings, not because they don’t believe that all the work invested will bring nice pay-offs, most likely more because they don’t want to be caught making those forward-looking statements and answer irate stockholders in class action suits.

When I talked to Volkswagen on Friday about the topic, I had not even raised the question of savings when Volkswagen spokesman Petro Zollino already asked me to understand that “as he is responsible for research and development, Dr. Hackenberg will not comment on key financial data.” Nonetheless, Zollino said Volkswagen is “convinced that we have built an excellent foundation for our future with these kits.”

I have seen a lot of hype at Volkswagen, and over the years, I helped to produce a good deal myself. On the job, I developed a pretty good nose for it. My nose says: MQB is no hype.  In German, “MQB” stands for “Modularer Querbaukasten,” which simply means “modular crosswise  construction kit”  – Meccano, or rather Fischertechnik to build cars with a transverse engine. If there is hype, then in the highfalutin English translation of MQB into “Modular Transverse Matrix.”

The kit architectures could influence car making at least as much as object-oriented languages influenced modern computing. Perhaps, the kits could revolutionize car making more than the assembly line. Hey, you never know.
 
GM cost the US taxpayer about $50 billion (and the final shares were sold at a $10 billion loss), and Canada was in for @ $16 billion between the Federal and Provincial governments, so it is <sarc>really reassuring</sarc> to know that the moneyu was well spent:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/03/gm-loses-market-share-again/

GM Loses Market Share, Again?


The press won’t make it easy for you to discover–gets in the way of the pre-packaged “Detroit is back!” narrative–but it looks like General Motors lost market share again in 2013. According to Ward’s Auto, GM sales grew 7.3%–but the market as a whole grew 7.5%. … GM sales for December unexpectedly cratered, despite “high inventory levels … unseen since before the Great Recession.” … If this is a good year for GM, I wonder what a bad year will look like. ….
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/03/gm-loses-market-share-again/#ixzz2pd3Kb3uw
 
A real scandal here. Using political power and influence to damage a competitor, hiding a lethal flaw in a product and other shenanigans:

http://reason.com/archives/2014/04/04/general-motors-scandal-worse

The General Motors Scandal May Be Worse Than You Think
Does anyone believe the Obama administration took as hard a look at GM as it did Toyota?
David Harsanyi | April 4, 2014

Carlos D. Rivera/WikimediaCarlos D. Rivera/WikimediaHere's another reason government should never own a business.

RELATED ARTICLES
Auto-Safety Bureaucrats Could Proft from the GM Recall Tragedy
Shikha Dalmia|4.04.14
Treasury Officials About GM's Deadly Cars: We Knew Nothing
Shikha Dalmia|4.04.14
GM Bailout Claims the Legal Rights of Americans
Shikha Dalmia|3.25.14
MORE ARTICLES BY David Harsanyi
The Creationism in Schools Distraction
3.28.14 4:30 pm
Are Voters Too Sensitive to 'Microaggressions?'
3.21.14 4:30 pm
Don't Blame Putin; Blame Russia
3.14.14 4:30 pm

In February 2010, the Obama administration's transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, told America, without a shred of evidence, that Toyota automobiles were dangerous to drive. LaHood offered the remarks in front of the House subcommittee that was investigating reports of unintended-acceleration crashes. "My advice is, if anybody owns one of these vehicles, stop driving it," he said, sending the company's stock into a nose dive.

Even at the time, LaHood's comments were reckless at best. Assailing the competition reeks of political opportunism and cronyism. It also illustrates one of the unavoidable predicaments of the state's owning a corporation in a competitive marketplace. And when we put LaHood's comment into perspective today, it's actually a lot worse. The Obama administration not only had the power and ideological motive to damage the largely nonunionized competition but also was busy propping up a company that was causing preventable deaths.

No one is innocent, of course, but not everyone is bailed out. So Toyota, after recalling millions of cars and changing parts and floor mats even before LaHood's outburst—and after years of being hounded by the administration—recently agreed to pay a steep fine for its role in the acceleration flap. This, despite the fact that in 2012, Department of Transportation (DOT) engineers determined that no mechanical failure was present that would cause applying the brakes to initiate acceleration. The DOT conducted tests that determined that the brakes could maintain a stationary car or bring one to a full stop even with the engine racing. It looked at 58 vehicles that were supposedly involved in unintended acceleration and found no evidence of brake failure or throttle malfunction.

Attorney General Eric Holder kept at it, though, and Toyota finally agreed to a $1.2 billion settlement (it has about $60 billion in reserves) to make it go away. Though it looks as if the company doesn't think the fight is worthwhile, for all I know, it's guilty. I'm certain, though, that General Motors (GM) is. It announced this week that it was recalling over a million vehicles that had sudden loss of electric power steering. This, after recalling nearly 3 million vehicles for ignition switch problems that the company had known about since 2001 and are now linked to 13 deaths.

GM has apologized. But does anyone believe that the Obama administration took as hard a look at GM as it did Toyota?

As early as 2007, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) knew that there may be problems with air bags but never launched a formal investigation. The NHTSA's acting chief, David Friedman, testified that GM never told the agency that faulty switches were at the root of the air bag problem. Fine. Before plowing billions of tax dollars into saving the United Automobile Workers, did the car czar or any other Obama officials take extra care to review DOT records to ensure that taxpayers would not be funding the preventable deaths of American citizens? Would DOT and Holder exhibit the same zealousness for safety with GM as they did when it came to Toyota?

In the midst of the bailout debate and subsequent "turnaround," news of a cover-up and major recall would have been a political disaster.

So it's difficult to understand why this isn't a huge scandal. If every obtuse utterance by an obscure Republican congressman gets the media juices flowing, surely the possibility of this kind of negligence is worth a look. Can anyone with access to the administration ask some of these questions? Because if you take credit for "saving" a company (actually, an "industry," as no one would have ever driven again if Obama hadn't saved the day), you also get credit for "saving" the real-life unscrupulous version of the company.

"I placed my bet on the American worker," Obama told union workers in 2012. "And I'll make that bet any day of the week. And now, three years later, that bet is paying off."

Betting $80 billion of someone else's money to prop up sympathetic labor unions isn't exactly fraught with political risk. Unless it turns out that your administration is less concerned about the safety defects of the company you own than it is about the company you dislike. That would be corruption.

David Harsanyi is senior editor of The Federalist and the author of Obama's Four Horsemen: The Disasters Unleashed by Obama's Reelection.
 
Back
Top