By on May 16, 2011

As Steve Rattner described in his book “Overhaul,” the Presidential Auto Task Force very nearly decided not to rescue Chrysler, with the decision coming down to a single vote. Now, it seems, that with Chrysler blaming the “shyster” interest rates on its government loans for its lack of profitability, Chrysler’s viability now depends on rounding up a “lender of second to last resort.” And, according to the latest reports, that rescue-of-a-rescue effort is still very much hanging in the balance as well. If CEO Sergio Marchionne thought the government’s loan terms were “shyster”-ish, he was clearly in need of some context from Wall Street… and he doesn’t seem to be liking it.

Though Chrysler needs about $7b in fresh debt to get out from under its oppressive government rescuers, the WSJ [sub] reports that Chrysler’s current debt proposal includes only $3.5b in loans and $2.5b in bonds. And, as the Journal describes, one of those elements is facing some trouble

While the bonds, which yield more than the loans, attracted strong interest from the beginning, the loan portion is off to a slow start. The loan will likely now be reduced, with a corresponding increase to the bond, according to people familiar with the matter. The loan will also likely carry a higher interest rate than previously proposed, they said. Overall, that shift will slightly increase the cost of the new debt.

Chrysler, which currently pays around 10 percent on its government loans is looking for loans at 5.5-5.75 percent. The fact that it’s having trouble getting loans at that rate means it’s more likely to have to take a disproportionate amount in bonds, which yield a not-insignificant 7.5%. The takeaway: nobody wants to lend Chrysler money at what it considers fair interest rates, and it will likely reduce its interest costs by less than half. Perhaps those government loans were more fair than Marchionne gave them credit for?

So what’s the problem? Well, the market, for starters.

The loan market’s limits have been stretched this month by the appearance of a number of large leveraged transactions, including multi-billion dollar deals by Delphi Automotive and Asurion Corp. The timing of Chrysler’s deal was complicated by the process of getting consensus from the U.S. government, the Canadian government and Fiat, said the people familiar with the matter.

The pool of money available for leveraged loans has shrunk because new collateralized loan obligations, known as CLOs, have disappeared. Also, many of the hedge funds that previously specialized in either loans or bonds are now buying both and are searching for attractive values across both markets.

Other problems? Well, Chrysler’s profitability has to be one of them. With $337m in interest expenses in Q1, a 33% reduction on a quarterly basis (a conservative best-case scenario for the re-fi), would still leave the firm with just under a billion dollars per year of interest costs. Given that Chrysler’s first profit in years was a razor-thin $116m, few of the lending banks are likely to delude themselves into thinking this re-fi will unshackle a slumbering giant that’s poised on the brink of huge profits. Add to this, the fact that the auto industry largely sees Chrysler’s rescue as negative for the health of the industry as a whole, and banks are going to be very hesitant about wading into a lot of Chrysler exposure.

Reuters adds some investor perspective to the picture, noting

Chrysler’s loan deal has struggled in part due to the troubled history of the company, as well as a pickup in supply of new leveraged loans that launched for syndication in recent days, potential investors said.

“In a market like this, trading sideways and with so much supply, people can afford to be choosy, especially when it comes down to a name where you have lost money before,” one of the investors said.

A second investor looking at the deal earlier this week said that pricing on the transaction may not adequately compensate lenders for the risk involved in the loan.

A third investor who was shown the deal said that given the large size of the loan, lenders didn’t feel pressed to rush in.

“Worst case, they can always pick it up in the secondary,” he said, adding that Chrysler’s car lineup consists mainly of larger cars that use more gasoline and that the company is relying on the Fiat brand, which is not widely known in the U.S. market.

Chrysler’s four underwriting banks, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America and Goldman Sachs, have each committed $200m to a $1.5b Chrysler revolving credit line, and though that facility is fully subscribed, the larger term loan is where the hesitation is taking place even though the revolver and the term loan are being priced identically, as follows:

400 to 425 basis points over Libor with a 1.25 percent Libor floor, along with a discount of 99 to 99.5 cents on the dollar.

Will Chrysler wrap up its financing and pay back the government? No matter what terms it finally gets, it will certainly save money with the re-fi, and will want to reap the PR benefits that come from misleading taxpayers into thinking the bailout payback is complete. Whether a Wall Street re-fi really changes much in the fundamentals of Chrysler’s business remains very much to be seen.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

12 Comments on “Chrysler Debt Effort Stalls: Goverment Loans Not So “Shyster” After All?...”


  • avatar
    SVX pearlie

    I wish Sergio much luck in his future dealings with a bunch of Jewish investment bankers who probably took that foolishly-uttered “shyster” slur personally and professionally.

  • avatar
    getacargetacheck

    Yes, those bond investors are probably still soured on Chrysler after losing so much in bankruptcy. Hard to see where the big profits are going to come from too. The 2012 C-segment and 2013 D-segment sedan/crossover had better be red hot.

  • avatar
    mike978

    So the Government interest rate was actually set reasonably and is returning money to the taxpayer each and every quarter. Isn’t Fiat getting close to majority ownership and then they will find the money.

    • 0 avatar
      MikeAR

      You’re kind of making it sound like the taxpayers aer going to get every penny back and that the interest will pay off the national debt. You know better than that, taxpayers will lose money on both GM and Chrysler and the interest paid is a drop in the bucket compared to total bailout costs.

    • 0 avatar
      Xeranar

      Basically, Yes. Fiat made those remarks (which are mildly taken out of context) essentially tongue-in-cheek to try and get more out of the US government to cover the difference. They wanted to get Chrysler (and thus a way into the US market) for practically nothing. I wouldn’t be surprised to see once they get full control that Chrysler starts turning profits quarterly.

      @MikeAR – Seriously, you’re highly misinformed. The auto loan deals were an independent bailout from the Banks done under George W. Bush. The auto bailout has already been established to have covered themselves through the independent CBO. If anything this is a great success for Obama, Democrats,and Keynesian economics in general. The National Debt ballooned under conservatives (who you insist on trolling for) so I don’t see how this is relative here.

  • avatar
    cheezeweggie

    Chrysler is the gangrene of the auto industry. It should have been amputated years ago.

    • 0 avatar

      The new Ram is pretty nice

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Chrysler ceased to be American when Daimler bought them. Just because Cerberus bought Chrysler at a fire sale does not make it an American company, and certainly not now that it is Italian owned and Italian run. It is no different than any other transplant, like Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, etc, except that Chrysler is a company using UAW labor, and that was Chrysler’s bad luck and downfall.

  • avatar
    AaronH

    I don’t know why the Fed just doesn’t print up some more dollars and “loan” them to Chrysler thru one of the Federal Reserve’s commericial banks at 3-5%…How about Goldman Sachs? BoA? America is morally bankrupt so the argument of “Moral Hazard” is moot.

  • avatar
    Beerboy12

    Sometimes I wish the auto industry was about cars… :-(

  • avatar
    Junebug

    “National Debt ballooned under conservatives” – REALLY, I seriously thought Obama and the Democrats in the house were liberals. Sorry pal, but you are koolaid drunk!

    Not to forget that Bush I and II were not conservatives either, BTW Keynesian economics failed under FDR and failed under Obama too.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      Not to forget that Bush I and II were not conservatives either

      This line of reasoning always bugs me. You can say what you like about them being “not real conservatives” but, by and large, this is what you get when you elect an erstwhile-conservative. The proof is in actions; you can’t retroactively decide that they weren’t conservative and can be safely ignored for the sake of ideological warm fuzzies.

      Is the same reasoning that people who say “Well, Stalin wasn’t a real Communist! Real Communism has never been tried” use, and it’s just as specious here. What it means is that conservative principles are irreconcilable with the real world, and/or are un-electable in the first place.

      This is why the Tea Party revolution is going to disappoint a lot of people: those starry-eyed candidates and their starrier-eyed supporters are going to be in for a shock when the real world comes calling. I’m actually looking forward to the schadenfreude after the unsurprising and deserved hay made on “Hope and Change”


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • J & J Sutherland, Canada
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India