Ask Dr. Z: Chrysler's Sales Bank

Andrew Dederer
by Andrew Dederer
ask dr z chryslers sales bank

Historically speaking, Chrysler’s desire to keep pace with Ford and GM has kept the company perched on the brink of disaster. In his magnificent Motown expose “The Reckoning,” author David Halberstam devotes a couple of chapters to the "Crisis Corporation's" perennial woes. Halberstam describes the corrosive effects of the automaker’s sales bank, where vehicles were built, registered as sold and held in vast lots– until reality caught up with book-keeping. The practice was eventually abandoned. As you’ve just read, it’s baaaaack.

The idea of the “sales bank” is logical– in theory. Instead of constantly slowing and speeding production to meet varying demand, factories work at full capacity year-round. Any unsold cars are “banked” in storage lots until demand picks up. This supposedly eliminates carmakers two largest headaches: the need to run near full capacity (to maintain low unit costs) and the cyclical market. What made the bank deadly in practice: overstated sales projections. “Banking” just made things worse.

The problem with “holding” the cars– beyond the storage cost and resulting deterioration– was the way the practice warped Chrysler’s relations with its dealers. With a huge pool of cars to choose from, there was little incentive for dealers to place ordinary orders from the factory. Instead, they’d simply pick up their sales inventory when the manufacturer’s lots got too full– at fire sale prices. Unfortunately, selling worn vehicles did little to increase demand for cars, which led to more “banking.”

Lee Iaccoca killed the Chrysler’s sales bank shortly after he assumed power, helping shape Chrysler’s comeback. The new sales bank has been going on for about a year, under the not-so-watchful eye of Chrysler Group Prez and CEO Dieter Zetsche. While both Ford and GM have bitten the bullet– making major production cuts and jettisoning workers to [try to] match production to the reduced demand– Chrysler has continued running their factories and “banking” the excess.

There is a reason for Chrysler’s sales bank “renaissance.” Under present contracts, United Auto Workers (UAW) members are paid virtually the same whether they are working or not. Back in the ‘70’, they would have simply collected unemployment. What hasn’t changed: all the reasons the bank was a bad idea. In fact, the problem's gotten worse.

This time, Chrysler dealers aren’t cherry-picking for bargains. Current dealer inventories for The Big Two Point Five have been stuck at almost 100 days for months– when half that amount is seen as dangerously excessive. DCX has been stuffing “money in the trunk” on old and new vehicles, and the dealers aren’t even sniffing the bait. There are now TWO bloated inventories that need reducing: Chrysler’s AND its dealers’.

Demand for these vehicles is unlikely to increase anytime soon. The natural market cap for the 300/Magnum/Charger seems to have been reached (the initial rush is over). The Sebring etc. are being replaced (as soon as they can get the dealers to take some). Minivans and trucks have been DCX’s profit centers for decades, but the minivans have been feeling new pressure from Hyundai/Kia in the economy market (Toyota and Honda have already skimmed most of the cream).

As for the trucks and SUVs, the future isn’t rosy. The Durango gets Suburban-level mileage with sub-Tahoe utility, and it just got a posh sibling that made an Aspen of itself. Being number three (and oldest) in the pickup market is like wearing a bulls-eye to a shootout. In short, DCX is likely to continue to lose market share in the near future.

If the sales bank is such a huge mistake– all the problems of fleet sales without any of the revenue– why does Chrysler persist? One theory making the rounds: Chrysler’s German masters are loathe to admit that their hand-picked team can out-screw-up the Americans– at least until the evidence becomes impossible to ignore (instead of merely visible from low Earth orbit). Another theory: the current regime believes their own hype. The sun will come out tomorrow, the sales bank will dry up, new products will erase the memory of the old, and all will be well.

The third and most intruiging suggestion is that the jobs bank is a not-so-secret stash of vehicles which allows Chrysler to play hardball with the United Auto Workers (UAW) in the run-up to '07 contract talks. This theory posits that when the UAW refused to grant the automaker the same [meager] health care givebacks it blessed upon Generous Motors– "pattern bargaining" up but not down– Chrysler began churning out product in preparation for a UAW strike.

If true, if The Dark Lords of DCX tell Big Ron's bluster boys to go sing, Chrysler would have half a year’s worth of product to keep dealers happy. Problem is, that’s not enough. Besides, when something looks like either a cunning conspiracy or simple stupidity, it’s usually stupidity. But wouldn't it be funny if a combination of stupidity and luck ended-up saving Chrysler's bacon?

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 33 comments
  • Sm92696 Sm92696 on Dec 13, 2006

    most of the public dont know that the uaw job bank was started 30 years ago and is funded by its members. it worked like this when ever raises were given out in the new contracts a portion of that went into that fund for the job bank,it was called the nickel fund then and has since grown.for many years it was not used and hit its cap of 250mil a few year ago before the s-- hit the fan. it works like this,if you get lets say 1.00hr raise 30cents goes into this fund from every hourly worker thats why it wont go and the uaw is going act like they fought hard to keep it to make them self look good,but its the workers own money anyways.as for over building i think they hoped it would pick up with there new adds but it didnt they wanted to keep shareholder from a panic by shutting down and telling of slow sales.

  • on Mar 01, 2007

    qq i see the new jeep patriots are out and at what seem to be a mysteriously low low price. but as a purist of sorts i wouldnt want to buy one that wasn't trail rated and i dont know how to negotiate with dealers given my profound bilateral sensoneural hearing loss greater than 95% in both ears and as if my ASL (american sign language)gives them a licence to railroad me into purchasing their bitterest of lemons (trust me on this one if you could shadow me for an entire day you'd see the truth behind the extent of the deceit, decadence, debauchery, depravity, and degeneration de de de ad nauseum makes me wonder if i might not be better served by simply driving down to the assembly plant in belvedere il a 50 minute hop jump and skip across the border from my location in walworth county wisconsin or is this potential achievement even remotely impossible to accomplish? i mean theres no love lost with daimler chrysler and the dealerships so why wouldnt they have the means motive incentive and/or determination to let me buy the vehicle right off the assembly line and save us 560.00 delivery charges and any other rebate or incentive they could offer??? I mean to buy me a trail rated patriot without any of the fancy amenities or options such as air conditioning and sound systems (I'm DEAF for crying out loud) and any other fool thing i can think of that can do without. Of course im gonna be wanting skid plates to protect the soft underbelly but that's about it. pls advise. thanks. steve s.

  • FreedMike This article fails to mention that Toyota is also investing heavily in solid state battery tech - which would solve a lot of inherent EV problems - and plans to deploy it soon. https://insideevs.com/news/598046/toyota-global-leader-solid-state-batery-patents/Of course, Toyota being Toyota, it will use the tech in hybrids first, which is smart - that will give them the chance to iron out the wrinkles, so to speak. But having said that, I’m with Toyota here - I’m not sold on an all EV future happening anytime soon. But clearly the market share for these vehicles has nowhere to go but up; how far up depends mainly on charging availability. And whether Toyota’s competitors are all in is debatable. Plenty of bet-hedging is going on among makers in the North American market.
  • Jeff S I am not against EVs but I completely understand Toyota's position. As for Greenpeace putting Toyota at the bottom of their environmental list is more drama. A good hybrid uses less gas, is cleaner than most other ICE, and is more affordable than most EVs. Prius has proven longevity and low maintenance cost. Having had a hybrid Maverick since April and averaging 40 to 50 mpg in city driving it has been smooth driving and very economical. Ford also has very good hybrids and some of the earlier Escapes are still going strong at 300k miles. The only thing I would have liked in my hybrid Maverick would be a plug in but it didn't come with it. If Toyota made a plug in hybrid compact pickup like the Maverick it would sell well. I would consider an EV in the future but price, battery technology, and infrastructure has to advance and improve. I don't buy a vehicle based on the recommendation of Greenpeace, as a status symbol, or peer pressure. I buy a vehicle on what best needs my needs and that I actually like.
  • Mobes Kind of a weird thing that probably only bothers me, but when you see someone driving a car with ball joints clearly about to fail. I really don't want to be around a car with massive negative camber that's not intentional.
  • Jeff S How reliable are Audi? Seems the Mazda, CRV, and Rav4 in the higher trim would not only be a better value but would be more reliable in the long term. Interior wise and the overall package the Mazda would be the best choice.
  • Pickles69 They have a point. All things (or engines/propulsion) to all people. Yet, when the analogy of being, “a department store,” of options is used, I shudder. Department stores are failing faster than any other retail. Just something to chew on.
Next