I’m curious what people think about this next round of bailouts? It appears that the White House and Democrats have agreed on taking a large stake in the Big 3 automakers.
The benefit for the auto makers? Money. They need capital to operate. It has been no secret that GM, Ford, and Chrysler have been struggling to compete with more modern, foreign car companies. Where does this leave them? Strapped for cash with expensive union contacts, too many dealerships, too many brands, and too many retirees to support. State law makes it nearly impossible for GM to start consolidating its 7000 dealerships (opposed to Toyota’s approximately 1500). Stubborness has made it difficult for GM to abandon one of its eight brands.4 It is no wonder the Big 3 are losing market share.
The cost for Detroit? Government oversight, control, and mandates. I would argue that government oversight is probably a good thing because a tough leader can start instituting some of the structural forms that make these companies unprofitable. Government control, on the other hand, is unfortunate, but the consequence of giving these companies tax payer money. Lastly, government mandates appear to be the knife in the heart of Big Auto.
The WSJ shed some light on the issue:
All this is dragged down by federal fuel-economy mandates that require them to lose tens of billions making small cars Americans don’t want in high-cost UAW factories. Understand something: Ford and GM in Europe successfully sell cars that are small but not cheap. Europeans are willing to pay top dollar for a refined small car that gets excellent mileage, because they face gasoline prices as high as $9. Americans are not Europeans. In the U.S., except during bouts of high gas prices or in the grip of a Prius fad, the small cars that American consumers buy aren’t bought for high mileage, but for low sticker prices. And the Big Three, with their high labor costs, cannot deliver as much value in a cheap car as the transplants can.
Read over that passage carefully and a few things become clear. 1 – Even if unions have served a role at some point in the life of these very storied companies, they are now choking them. The problem? UAW donated a lot of money to Obama, they paid 3 million dollars to run a single ad for him a few weeks before the election. It is clear that the solution to Detroit’s woes involve not only reshaping the corporate structure, but reshaping the corporations’ relationships with the UAW.
2- Fuel efficiency standards distort the decisions of automakers. American consumers pay big bucks to drive the cars they want to spend that money on. Think about this carefully. Let’s do it step-by-step:
-Car companies have the choice to make a variety of cars.
-They have inputs like labor, materials, and machinery.
-Those inputs are expensive.
-Consumers have the choice to buy a variety of cars.
-Demand is high for Trucks and SUVs.
-Automakers charge higher prices for Trucks and SUVs.
-They make a profit.
-Demand is low for Cars at the same prices.
-Automakers charge lower prices for Cars.
-They lose money on smaller cars, which sell for less, but still require the expensive inputs.
-Government mandates require Car companies to produce small, fuel efficient vehicles in expensive factories.
-Big 3 become unprofitable.
The government’s solution? Take over the companies and make them produce more fuel-efficient vehicles.
WAIT a second!?!?! Buy a company and pursue its unprofitable business?
But, gas is expensive and people want to stop global warming! Right?…Right? Let’s take the facts from a ‘green living website’:
In 2004, many experts criticized the investment return on hybrid cars. They said that with the economy at the time, at $2 per gallon of gas, it would take 12 years to recover the investment of a hybrid Civic compared to the purchase of an equally equipped Civic powered strictly by gasoline. At that point, the hybrid Civic only averaged seven more miles per gallon than the gas powered Civic. Additionally, the hybrid Civic’s sticker price was $6,000 more.
Additionally,
In 2004, Max Martina, managing director of the Alternative Energy Institute, said that gas prices were going to have to reach $2.50 to $2.65 to cause hybrids to show a five year return on investment.
Gas has to be around $2.50/gallon for your hybrid car to save you any money over buying the standard model. With gas at current prices, it would take approximately 12 years. Not only are hybrids more expensive up-front, the investment is highly sensitive to fuel prices. If its the environment we are worried about, then we’ll have to wait for some kind of carbon tax for producing these cars to be a profitable decision. Until then, it is hard for consumers to justify purchasing these cars because the incentives aren’t in place for people to value global warming in their economic decisions. Furthermore, tax incentives to buy these cars are about to expire as well:
Hybrid tax incentives start to go away when a car maker sells its 60,000th alternative-fuel vehicle, a level Toyota reached in mid-2006 and Honda hit in the third quarter of 2007. The amount of the tax credit is first reduced by 50% before disappearing altogether over several months. Honda’s tax credit, currently $525, will be phased out by Dec. 31, according to the Internal Revenue Service. The Civic credit had been as high as $2,100 before the phase-out began in January 2008.
The article continues,
“If you look at it strictly from a short-term payback perspective, without the tax credits, hybrids make absolutely no sense for the average driver,” says Kim Korth, president of IRN Inc., a consulting firm in Grand Rapids, Mich. “The tax credit at least made it neutral, if not positive.”
Removing tax credits would extend the time it takes to receive a return on investment on a hybrid car in some cases up to 16 years! That article is from November, gas is has continued to drop since then.
So, what is Congress thinking? Why is the Bush administration agreeing to this non-sense? Making hybrid cars isn’t going to save Detroit! Requiring the Big 3 to make these cars will kill them. In fact, the Chevrolet Volt, an electric car which is getting everyone excited, will cause GM to lose money “for years”.
I know this blog post would disappoint Al Gore, but I think everyone needs a reality check here! This is going to cost a lot of money and involve a ton of special interest? When do we get smart about this?
I can tell you right now, that this NY Times editorial is not the answer:
G.M. said it would offer 15 hybrid models by 2012. Its Chevy Volt, which can travel up to 40 miles on electric power, is scheduled for production in 2010. Chrysler also said it would offer an all-electric automobile. Ford said it would cut trucks, vans and sport-utility vehicles to 40 percent of its portfolio from 52 percent in three years and would put more fuel-efficient engines in most of its cars.
Congress should ask for more
Classic. A NYT article heralding the inception of the unprofitable Volt and wanting Congress to make things worse.
Recent Comments