Bailout Watch 426: VEBA Equity Deal Could Give UAW 25 Percent Of Ford

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

Covering Detroit’s massive health care liabilities is perhaps the single greatest challenge facing those working on the auto industry bailout, reports the Washington Post. Detroit retirees in particular represent a huge commitment, as current health care benefits include dental, vision and prescription drug benefits for the low price of $11 per month. And as the automakers burn through their cash, they must come up with some way of maintaining or cutting benefits in the face of rising health care costs. GM currently carries $20B in health care obligations, over ten times its market capitalization. Chrysler owes $10B and Ford owes $3.2B of its total $13.2B VEBA commitment this year alone. With bailout plans calling for automakers to inject equity rather than tight cash into the VEBA system, a number of unintended consequences are being forecast.

In GM’s case, the biggest challenge is avoiding stock price degradation. At ten times its current market cap, GM must not only reduce the amount of equity it is being asked to put into VEBA, it must also convince investors that the VEBA deal will leave GM stronger than it was. Otherwise, GM’s already threatened stock could become a target for sell-offs. Especially considering it has over $30B in unsecured debt that it must also convert into equity. Needless to say these kinds of radical equity restructurings are rarely attempted, let alone completed, outside of bankruptcy court.

In the case of Ford, thedetroitbureau.com reports that the $1.6B that Dearborn must fork over in equity is equal to 25 percent of the company’s stock. This would make the VEBA board a major stockholder in Ford, a possibility that wories many. Five of the VEBA board’s 11 members are UAW members, and the other six are subject to union review. According to Steve Diamond, a professor of law at Santa Clara University [Ed. Go Broncos!] in California, the VEBA board is an opaque institution with a record of incomplete disclosure. Moreover, says Diamond, the union shouldn’t be allowed to negotiate the terms of VEBA. VEBA trustees “are the only ones that should have a say over the cash flow into the fund,” he argues.

In short, the Detroit automakers still owe more in union health care obligations alone than they are worth on the open market. And even with plans to put equity into VEBA instead of cash, and with the union accepting a 50 percent payout, this single obligation could bring any of the Detroit firms down. Or place them under union control. Needless to say, only bankruptcy proceedings can unburden the automakers fom this ruinous debt.

Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 12 comments
  • Robert Schwartz Robert Schwartz on Mar 03, 2009

    "GM’s already threatened stock could become a target for sell-offs." Been there, done that, T-shirt. $2/shr. What difference does it make? Ford. The Ford Family owns stock with multiple votes per share. Having 25% of the outstanding public shares which get one vote per share, gives a right to buy coffee for $1.50 at McDonalds.

  • Anonymous Anonymous on Mar 08, 2009

    [...] Source: thetruthaboutcars.com [...]

  • Kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh A prelude is a bad idea. There is already Acura with all the weird sport trims. This will not make back it's R&D money.
  • Analoggrotto I don't see a red car here, how blazing stupid are you people?
  • Redapple2 Love the wheels
  • Redapple2 Good luck to them. They used to make great cars. 510. 240Z, Sentra SE-R. Maxima. Frontier.
  • Joe65688619 Under Ghosn they went through the same short-term bottom-line thinking that GM did in the 80s/90s, and they have not recovered say, to their heyday in the 50s and 60s in terms of market share and innovation. Poor design decisions (a CVT in their front-wheel drive "4-Door Sports Car", model overlap in a poorly performing segment (they never needed the Altima AND the Maxima...what they needed was one vehicle with different drivetrain, including hybrid, to compete with the Accord/Camry, and decontenting their vehicles: My 2012 QX56 (I know, not a Nissan, but the same holds for the Armada) had power rear windows in the cargo area that could vent, a glass hatch on the back door that could be opened separate from the whole liftgate (in such a tall vehicle, kinda essential if you have it in a garage and want to load the trunk without having to open the garage door to make room for the lift gate), a nice driver's side folding armrest, and a few other quality-of-life details absent from my 2018 QX80. In a competitive market this attention to detai is can be the differentiator that sell cars. Now they are caught in the middle of the market, competing more with Hyundai and Kia and selling discounted vehicles near the same price points, but losing money on them. They invested also invested a lot in niche platforms. The Leaf was one of the first full EVs, but never really evolved. They misjudged the market - luxury EVs are selling, small budget models not so much. Variable compression engines offering little in terms of real-world power or tech, let a lot of complexity that is leading to higher failure rates. Aside from the Z and GT-R (low volume models), not much forced induction (whether your a fan or not, look at what Honda did with the CR-V and Acura RDX - same chassis, slap a turbo on it, make it nicer inside, and now you can sell it as a semi-premium brand with higher markup). That said, I do believe they retain the technical and engineering capability to do far better. About time management realized they need to make smarter investments and understand their markets better.
Next