General Motors Death Watch 87: Dead Beat

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

A few days after GM's vice president of vehicle sales, service and marketing assured auto industry analysts that his employer will maintain incentive-free “value pricing," General Motors announced two grand cash back on the 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, Avalanche and Suburban and the GMC Yukon, Yukon XL and Denali. To be fair, nobody took LaNeve’s price promise seriously. By now, everyone knows GM’s new(ish) SUV’s are a drug on the market, and it ain’t Viagra. There’s only way to move the metal: lower the price. Either that or stop making the damn things.

Last Friday (always Friday), GM CEO Rick Wagoner announced that The General will curtail production of its GMT-900 based SUV’s. Rabid Rick tried to minimize the damage by asserting that GM was going to halt “some overtime” on SUV assembly lines and introduce “other products” into the production mix— as if to say demand for GM’s gas guzzlers was still hot, just not sizzling, and besides, we can make some other stuff instead.

Yeah right. At the end of July, in an industry where a 60-day supply is an acceptable maximum, GM dealers were stuffed to the gills with Tahoes (82 days), Yukons (89 days) and Chevrolet Suburbans (75 days). Although the figures are not far off last year's, these are GM's "new" trucks. August is going to be a bitch.

Meanwhile, Rabid Rick proclaimed that GM's share of the full-size SUV market has “boomed.” According to Wagoner, GM now “owns” 50 to 75 percent of various segments within the SUV genre— which is a bit like saying you’ve scored the best cabins on the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. The executive’s statement was a remarkable piece of spin, but it pales in comparison to GM’s creative accounting. Lest we forget, Rabid Rick ascended to his throne as GM Chief Financial Officer. Here’s a bit of what he’s learned…

Yesterday, The General’s GMAC finance unit signed a three-year, $10b funding facility with a Citigroup subsidiary. Four billion dollars of the money falls into a brand new category for GMAC: “unrated notes”. Unrated notes are papers representing loans that are so far outside traditional credit parameters that the vast majority oif insitutional investors are literally prohibited from buying them.

In other words, GM’s “Zero Percent for Deadbeats” summer blowout left GMAC with billions of dollars of risky loans. No surprise then that GM's finance arm reported that the unrated notes are backed by assets “not typically securitized by GMAC.” OK, here's the "creative" part…

Because the risk is so high, there's a gap between the money GMAC lent its less-than-perfect customers and the amount of money Citigroup paid for the loans. As part of the deal, GM has agreed to cover the shortfall (i.e. securitize the assets). It’s all a bit confusing (by design), but here’s the bottom line: GMAC carries little or no risk for the bad loans. GM buries a “charge” in its sales costs to cover the money paid to GMAC for the dicey loans.

The shell game maintains the illusion of higher average transaction prices, hides huge discounts/rebates and moves vehicles off the lot. Given that GM generates about $28b in North American sales per quarter, $4b in bad debt equals about 15% of sales (assuming 100% financing). Since most of this paper was written in 60 days, as much as 40% of GM's recent sales surge may be directly attributable to bad loans. Put that in your quarterly report and smoke it.

Just like last year’s “Fire Sale for All” program, the “Zero Percent for Deadbeats” program will eventually bite GM in the ass. Can you imagine what these vehicles will be worth when (not if) they’re repossessed? At the risk of sounding, um, deadbeatist, people with sub-basement level credit scores tend to smoke, spill beer, puke, rip up interiors, ding ‘em good and never fix a thing. And speaking of repairs…

In the second financial quarter, GM downgraded its warranty expenses per vehicle to $325 (compared to $523 for the same quarter in ’05). GM’s improving reliability record is admirable, but it doesn’t justify that kind of drop. The revised figure added $433 million (the equivalent of $0.67 a share) to GM’s second quarter “profits.” Clearly, GM is ducking and diving, window dressing its earnings to mask the company’s true performance, or lack thereof.

The truth is things are not going well at RenCen. While GM has finalized its new credit line of $4.5b (on onerous terms), the company still withdrew an additional $2b from its VEBA on July thirty-first to cover health care reimbursement. GM’s continual need to tap into the VEBA account suggests a cash shortage.

Now that the GMAC sale has been postponed until next year, the need for operating funds could well become critical. While the risk of a GM default may not be imminent, a strike at bankrupt auto parts maker Delphi would be the tipping point. In the event of a work stoppage, GM’s credit line would be reduced by a billion dollars.

Industry watchers still say it’ll never happen. Meanwhile, negotiations at Delphi are stalled and the most recent final deadline arrives in two days. If Delphi goes down, GM goes down. If it doesn’t, the company's descent into bankruptcy will merely be postponed.

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 87 comments
  • Glenn Glenn on Aug 21, 2006

    This Chinese market is all fine and good except for a couple of flys in the soup. GMs Chinese operations (as other non-Chinese companies) is only a 50/50 joint venture (in GMs case, with Shanghai aka SAIC, which also has a 50/50 JV with Volkswagen, and bought rights to the Rover designs before Rover imploded, also SAIC owns a portion of "GMDaewoo" and 49% of Ssangyong in South Korea). So, how "dedicated" is SAIC towards the GM JV? They are planning on building cars in COMPETITION with GM and VW for EXPORT soon. The other "catch" is that if GM thinks the 50% owned JV in China is going to carry the rest of their worldwide automotive operations when North American operations is sinking, sinking, sinking - they had better go back to Econ 101. Ain'tgonnahappen dot com. In case everyone's forgotten, the People's Republic of China is a communist state run by a few, and they can change anything on a whim. Like nationalize auto companies, or prevent profits from leaving from JVs, or raise interest rates (they just did that) to slow down the economy. Whatever. The GM guys and the rest of the western JV part-owners had better figure out that they can't simply control everything down at the Mason lodge any more. As in, the tiller isn't in their hands. So, they can join the rest of us, who've never had a tiller in our hands, controlling billions of dollars and millions of lives.

  • Chanman Chanman on Aug 23, 2006

    The China market in aggregate is still tiny, and is seeing even higher levels of competition. VW is the established player, and there was a boom in local manufacturing. Add to this FDI in factories (Buick, Toyota - Corolla and Camry are both now built in-country in China), and you come up with... a massive case of oversupply. The Chinese auto market, despite growing dramatically, is still growing slower than production capability - prepare for a winnowing ahead.

  • Bouzouki Cadillac (aka GM!!) made so many mistakes over the past 40 years, right up to today, one could make a MBA course of it. Others have alluded to them, there is not enough room for me to recite them in a flowing, cohesive manner.Cadillac today is literally a tarted-up Chevrolet. They are nice cars, and the "aura" of the Cadillac name still works on several (mostly female) consumers who are not car enthusiasts.The CT4 and CT5 offer superlative ride and handling, and even performance--but, it is wrapped in sheet metal that (at least I think) looks awful, with (still) sub-par interiors. They are niche cars. They are the last gasp of the Alpha platform--which I have been told by people close to it, was meant to be a Pontiac "BMW 3-series". The bankruptcy killed Pontiac, but the Alpha had been mostly engineered, so it was "Cadillac-ized" with the new "edgy" CTS styling.Most Cadillacs sold are crossovers. The most profitable "Cadillac" is the Escalade (note that GM never jack up the name on THAT!).The question posed here is rather irrelevant. NO ONE has "a blank check", because GM (any company or corporation) does not have bottomless resources.Better styling, and superlative "performance" (by that, I mean being among the best in noise, harshness, handling, performance, reliablity, quality) would cost a lot of money.Post-bankruptcy GM actually tried. No one here mentioned GM's effort to do just that: the "Omega" platform, aka CT6.The (horribly misnamed) CT6 was actually a credible Mercedes/Lexus competitor. I'm sure it cost GM a fortune to develop (the platform was unique, not shared with any other car. The top-of-the-line ORIGINAL Blackwing V8 was also unique, expensive, and ultimately...very few were sold. All of this is a LOT of money).I used to know the sales numbers, and my sense was the CT6 sold about HALF the units GM projected. More importantly, it sold about half to two thirds the volume of the S-Class (which cost a lot more in 201x)Many of your fixed cost are predicated on volume. One way to improve your business case (if the right people want to get the Green Light) is to inflate your projected volumes. This lowers the unit cost for seats, mufflers, control arms, etc, and makes the vehicle more profitable--on paper.Suppliers tool up to make the number of parts the carmaker projects. However, if the volume is less than expected, the automaker has to make up the difference.So, unfortunately, not only was the CT6 an expensive car to build, but Cadillac's weak "brand equity" limited how much GM could charge (and these were still pricey cars in 2016-18, a "base" car was ).Other than the name, the "Omega" could have marked the starting point for Cadillac to once again be the standard of the world. Other than the awful name (Fleetwood, Elegante, Paramount, even ParAMOUR would be better), and offering the basest car with a FOUR cylinder turbo on the base car (incredibly moronic!), it was very good car and a CREDIBLE Mercedes S-Class/Lexus LS400 alternative. While I cannot know if the novel aluminum body was worth the cost (very expensive and complex to build), the bragging rights were legit--a LARGE car that was lighter, but had good body rigidity. No surprise, the interior was not the best, but the gap with the big boys was as close as GM has done in the luxury sphere.Mary Barra decided that profits today and tomorrow were more important than gambling on profits in 2025 and later. Having sunk a TON of money, and even done a mid-cycle enhancement, complete with the new Blackwing engine (which copied BMW with the twin turbos nestled in the "V"!), in fall 2018 GM announced it was discontinuing the car, and closing the assembly plant it was built in. (And so you know, building different platforms on the same line is very challenging and considerably less efficient in terms of capital and labor costs than the same platform, or better yet, the same model).So now, GM is anticipating that, as the car market "goes electric" (if you can call it that--more like the Federal Government and EU and even China PUSHING electric cars), they can make electric Cadillacs that are "prestige". The Cadillac Celestique is the opening salvo--$340,000. We will see how it works out.
  • Lynn Joiner Lynn JoinerJust put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?
  • Lynn Joiner Just put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?
  • Ollicat I am only speaking from my own perspective so no need to bash me if you disagree. I already know half or more of you will disagree with me. But I think the traditional upscale Cadillac buyer has traditionally been more conservative in their political position. My suggestion is to make Cadillac separate from GM and make them into a COMPANY, not just cars. And made the company different from all other car companies by promoting conservative causes and messaging. They need to build up a whole aura about the company and appeal to a large group of people that are really kind of sick of the left and sending their money that direction. But yes, I also agree about many of your suggestions above about the cars too. No EVs. But at this point, what has Cadillac got to lose by separating from GM completely and appealing to people with money who want to show everyone that they aren't buying the leftist Kook-Aid.
  • Jkross22 Cadillac's brand is damaged for the mass market. Why would someone pay top dollar for what they know is a tarted up Chevy? That's how non-car people see this.
Next