Ronald Reagan once said that the scariest words in the English language are “we’re from the government and we’re here to help.” For troubled auto suppliers though, there are scarier things than government assistance. Specifically, government assistance administered by GM and Chrysler. Automotive News [sub] reports that the the newest automaking branches of the federal government will be in charge of allocating the $5 billion in supplier aid, and that they’ll be using the money to settle old scores. According to AN‘s breezy prose, GM and Chrysler may “pass over” suppliers that have sought to protect themselves from OEM bankruptcies by demanding payment in fewer than 45 days or arguing that insolvency worries allow them to break contracts with the automakers. After all, the government didn’t think the supplier rescue money would go to the most in-need firms, did it?

Automotive News [sub] reports that GM spin-off supplier Delphi has received approval from bankruptcy court to cut benefits to 15k non-union retirees. The ruling will save Delphi an estimated $70M per year, improving the chances Delphi will end its nearly 3.5-year sojourn in Chapter 11 restructuring. GM has been helping generously towards that end, having offered to buy Delphi’s steering component business for an undisclosed sum and funneled hundreds of millions to its crucial supplier. Or quasi-independent division. Or whatever Delphi really is to GM. The full text of the order in question is here (pdf). It’s long, so check out a few highlights after the jump.

Delphi and Visteon were spun off from GM and Ford respectively at the turn of the millennium, in hopes of cutting costs and improving efficiency. But rather than creating healthy, solid companies they could rely on as major suppliers, the Detroit OEMs used the spin-offs to dump unwanted assets, UAW workers and fixed-cost obligations on their new partners. And now GM and Ford are reaping the bitter harvest of their ill-advised spin-offs. Visteon, which has never turned a profit, just had its stock delisted last week after losing $663M in 2008. Delphi has been in Bankruptcy since October 2005, and, having lost $1.48B last year, it is barely surviving on cash infusions from the General, which really could have used the dough. And both suppliers are threatening to take down America’s two largest automakers.

As compelling as Ford’s executive paycut for Easter Monday holiday “ compromise” is, there are still plenty of stormclouds brewing around Dearborn. For example, Ford’s supplier spin-off Visteon is tanking, telling Automotive News [sub] it “cannot assure that it will remain in compliance with the terms of its outstanding debt instruments.” The firm’s $328m fourth-quarter loss is being blamed on a billion dollar revenue drop and “asset-impairment charges” of $200m. This coming from a firm that has never turned an annual profit. Amid growing rumors of bankruptcy filings (and 13 cent stock price), Visteon’s only other choices are asset sales or government bailout. Meanwhile, inquiring minds (OK, MSNBC) are beginning to wonder when Ford will succumb to the siren song of the federal bailout.

More news from Sweden:

“On thursday, supplier P-E Plast stopped their delivieries of parts to Saab in Trollhättan.

The owner, Patrik Ekwall, who runs the company since some months back, is afraid he won’t get paid for his deliveries, reports Swedish Radio (SR).

At Saab, no one answered when he phoned them. “We are wating for a reply” he says.

The last month, P-E Plast has delivered parts for 400 000 kronor (around 80 000 dollars) to Trollhättan. The company makes plastic details for the car industry, and a third of its sales goes to Saab.

In spite of the current circumstances, Patrik Ekwall hopes to keep the eleven employees.”

[thanks to Ingvar for the link and translation]

The General Motors spin-off of Delphi which never really was, isn’t. Today’s Wall Street Journal [sub] has another “people involved in the negotiations”-sourced story claiming that these latest moves are all “part of a strategy to qualify for additional government loans”. Delphi has never really been an independent company from the start. The obvious reason of course is that GM provides the vast majority of Delphi’s business. But more than that, GM is on the hook for Delphi’s pension costs, has paid the price for voluntary separations at Delphi and has repeatedly been the source of bailout bucks for Delphi. Considering that “since 2005, GM has poured in $11.7 billion to help sustain the company,” they might as well just call it the Delphi Division. But how do federal bailout dollars get wrapped up in this mess?

Auto industry suppliers have been stuck between a rock (penny-squeezing OEMs) and a hard place (volatile commodity prices) for some time now. And though the Detroit Three argue relentlessly that their own bankruptcy would doom them in the eyes of consumers, bankruptcy protection has practically become the norm for their suppliers. Which is why supplier firms need a bailout of their own in order to give Detroit’s bailout a chance. Chrysler’s endless winter break, GM’s half-sized Q1 production plan and general industry turmoil is about to cause exactly what the bailout was supposed to prevent: cascading supplier bankruptcies. Bloomberg documents the doom in detail, concluding with American Axle’s Dick Dauch’s assessment that “there’s a shakeout occurring.” Unless…

Recently, firms like Tesla have launched themselves into the public eye by trumpeting the meme that Silicone Valley’s innovation-driven culture will show the way for Detroit which remains mired in old-economy faults. And it’s a storyline that has yielded millions in venture capital and free media attention. The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman unintentionally brought this line of thinking to its point of absurdum by calling on Steve Jobs to “do national service and run a car company for a year.” But as our ongoing Tesla Death Watch consistently demonstrates, Silicon Valley automakers could still stand to learn a thing or two about, you know, actually producing cars from even Detroit’s most dismal. And then there’s this story from The San Jose Mercury detailling the extent to which Silicon Valley is dependent on business from Detroit. “As soon as the automotive industry coughs, a lot of other companies get a cold,” Gartner analyst Thilo Koslowski tells the Merc. “That includes companies in the semiconductor industry and that includes a lot in the Bay Area… It’s a relatively big market for them in Silicon Valley.”

The other day, I told my mechanic I needed winter tires, and asked for a recommendation. “I’ll get you some Dunlops, they’re not bad, and cheaper than the Uniroyals you had last time.” When I asked him about rolling resistance and about tire wear, he looked at me like I was stupid, and repeated: “They’re pretty good tires”. So I looked at some car sites in the Internet, gave up after about five minutes, and ordered the Dunlops. Does buying tires have to be a “trust the guy in the greasy overall” event? The EU Commission (the executive branch of the European Union) says no, and intends to introduce new rules for labelling tires. The tire industry agrees that yes, change is probably necessary, with some qualifications, under certain conditions…

Note to CEOs: if you’re going to meet with your competitors at a clandestine hotel in order to fix prices, make sure nobody in your entourage is a snitch. And if you’ve already received a regulator’s multimillion-dollar fine a few years ago, be more careful the second time, otherwise you’re likely to be fined a cool billion bucks– as France’s Saint Gobain was yesterday. Neelie Kroes, European Commissioner for Competition: “Saint-Gobain, Asahi, Pilkington and Soliver have defrauded the auto industry and consumers for five years. The FT reports that the fines are so punitive because the auto glass industry is large (sales of $3bn/year) and because Saint-Gobain had been involved in a similar incident in the past.”

Thanks to the global economy’s stomach-churning loop-the-loop, demand– and prices– for auto-related commodities like steel and oil are dropping. For the moment anyway. Automotive News [sub] reports that the downturn in commodity prices couldn’t come at a better time for profits-challenged automakers, who will finalize supplier contracts this December. By locking in a lower price now, automakers will put the onus on suppliers to renegotiate if commodity prices go back up over the next year. Hear that? It’s GM VP for purchasing and supply chain Bo Andersson rubbing his hands and cackling maniacally. Andersson plans “a different mix of contracts with steel makers in a bid to get lower prices for 2009,” despite supplier concerns that the cost of raw materials such as coke and iron ore have not fallen as rapidly as the price of finished steel. Bottom line?

CNNMoney reports that Chrysler has filed suit against Johnson Controls for "systematic and deliberate overcharges." The ailing American automaker claims the world's leading battery supplier "provided fictitious weight data under the guise that it could charge Chrysler more for the amount of lead used in its battery products. Chrysler had agreed to pay more to cover increasing lead costs." ChryCo's seeking to claw back $15m from Johnson. Or it could be trying to ensure that none of its suppliers gets too "feisty," in terms of demanding cash-on-the-nail for their goods or services. Or both. Or maybe Chrysler's Cerberusian masters reckon there's gold in them thar lawsuits. The Times of India intimates that Mahindra and Mahindra are looking to pay-off settle with Chrysler re: the Jeepish front grill on the Indian automaker's Scorpio SUV.